Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Gipsy Sites

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many gipsy sites have been provided up to September, 1971.

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have not prepared sites for gipsies.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) on 21st January.—[Vol. 829, c. 284–5.]

Mr. Reed: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are acting with sufficient speed to provide areas for gipsy encampments? Is he satisfied, too, that the Gipsy Council is doing all that it might to promote closer co-operation with local authorities to try to avoid the difficulties that arise?

Mr. Page: I cannot be satisfied that this matter is being dealt with as speedily as I should like it to be, but I realise the difficulties with which local authorities are faced because of objections from local residents in the neighbourhood of the sites. So far 42 sites have been established, and I think that good progress is being made.

Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that when gipsy sites are constructed they make for better relations between gipsies and the local community,

as gipsies then have a definite place of residence, rather than having to wander around? Will my hon. Friend therefore push local authorities to construct sites as soon as possible?

Mr. Page: I am doing that by as much persuasion as I can. Well-equipped, controlled sites are the only practical alternative to the squalid, unauthorised encampments which cause such a nuisance.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling is still abroad that insufficient speed is being shown in the provision of sites? One does not wish to discriminate against gipsies, but the fact has to be faced that they cause considerable annoyance and inconvenience to residents in the area.

Mr. Page: I hope that local authorities will take note of these Questions and the answers and will proceed as quickly as possible with the provision of sites. The great advantage to a county borough if it sets up 15 sites is that it can take all the necessary powers to clear unauthorised sites.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many ratepayers object to paying for parking space for itinerant scrap merchants, who are distinct from genuine gipsies?

Mr. Page: We are having consultations on the question of possible grants in respect of genuine gipsies.

Housing (United Kingdom and France)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dewellings there are per 1,000 inhabitants in Great Britain and France, respectively; and what further action he proposes to take to increase the British figure.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Crude figures of this kind do not provide a reliable way of comparing housing in the two countries. In 1968, the latest date for which figures are available for both countries, France had rather more houses per 1,000 population than Great Britain—342 as against 336—but ours provided better standards of accommodation.

Mr. Jenkins: While recognising that what the hon. Gentleman says is true, that the quality of British houses is better than that of French houses, may I ask him to recognise that much private house building is the building of a second house, with a publicly subsidised mortgage, for someone who already has one house? Will he reverse the present trend and encourage the building of council houses, which is the building of houses for people who have no house?

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we wish to see a substantial increase in housing of all kinds.

Box-Girder Bridges (Birkenhead)

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the examination of box-girder bridges on the Mersey Tunnel fly-overs at Birkenhead; and when he expects them to be available for use for the purpose for which they were designed.

Mr. Graham Page: The steel box-girder flyovers on the Birkenhead side of the Mersey Tunnel are the responsibility of the County Borough of Birkenhead, with whom I suggest my hon. Friend should get in touch.

Mr. Cockeram: In view of the fiasco of box-girder bridges, will my hon. Friend ensure that those responsible for their design are not employed on further building—bridges, motorways or otherwise—in future?

Mr. Page: That is another question, which I shall consider. I should not have said that it was disastrous all over the country. My Department is helping those local authorities responsible—such as Birkenhead—with advice, and it is doing all it can to see that the bridges are thoroughly examined as quickly as possible.

Mr. Ogden: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that box-girder bridges are on both sides of the Mersey? No box-girder bridge has ever failed once it has been put on site. Is the Minister's Department, and the Departments of his colleagues, not being a little overcautious in the length of time that is being taken on tests?

Mr. Page: It is perfectly true that none has failed, once completed. However, I would not regard it as an abundance of caution to examine them all to make certain that on collapse will occur.

Mr. Tilney: Does not the cost fall, at least partially, on the ratepayers on both sides of the Mersey? Is that not wrong?

Mr. Page: No, because the roads were entirely the responsibility of the local highway authorities. No grant was made out of Government funds for the building of the roads.

British Railways (Mineral-Carrying Branch Lines)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a general direction to British Railways to ensure the continued and efficient working of mineral-carrying branch lines when employment in industries served by such lines is immediately and directly affected by restriction of their working and in particular by their closure.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): No, Sir.

Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, which has a male unemployment rate of over 7 per cent., a local quarry company was obliged to dismiss 25 of its workmen because of a decision by British Railways first to increase substantially their charges for the carrying of minerals and, secondly, to close within a few months the branch line serving the quarry?
In view of the efforts which the Government claim they are making to improve the unemployment situation, may I ask the Minister to appreciate that a small but appropriate and simple remedy in this instance would be for him to have a word with British Railways and get them to agree, first, to keep; pen this branch line and, next, to reduce their exorbitant freight rates?

Mr. Peyton: While I have every sympathy with the background which the hon. Gentleman has outlined, I nevertheless have no powers to direct British Railways on this subject. It must be a management decision whether to withdraw a freight service, which in the


instance which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I believe, is totally unprofitable.

British Railways Board (Reorganisation of Headquarters)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give a general direction to the British Railways Board in considering the reorganisation of the headquarters of their various territories to have regard to social considerations and the needs of development areas.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Tilney: Is it not wrong for a nationalised industry to create unemployment in a development area and to produce jobs in an area such as Manchester, which is much more prosperous than Merseyside?

Mr. Peyton: I would not wish to enter into the controversy between Liverpool and Manchester to which my hon. Friend referred. It is for British Railways or any other nationalised industry to conduct their business as efficiently as they can.

Mr. Bradley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the entire proposal of British Railways for a new territorial organisation is an elaborate piece of nonsense that should be stopped forthwith? Does the proposal require the right hon. Gentleman's approval?

Mr. Peyton: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that any major reorganisation requires my approval. I have not yet received any proposals.

Regional Water Authorities (Appeals)

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to ensure an adequate independent system of appeals against decisions of the future regional water authorities, relating to consent conditions and abstractions.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The existing system of appeals will continue.

Mr. Jones: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the subject of public accountability in connection

with his proposals for regional water authorities?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the paper is basically a consultative document. Thus, if any views are expressed about improving or obtaining public accountability, I shall of course consider them.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this aspect of his proposals is causing widespread concern, that it is thought generally to be an engineers' plan—it is conceded that this may have merit—and that there can be no case for nationalising these authorities while removing public control and accountability, which appears to be the purpose of the paper?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that supplementary question because it enables me to reply that there is no need for such public concern.

Mr. Ron Lewis: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to introduce the Bill dealing with this subject?

Mr. Walker: I hope so to introduce the Bill that the new proposals can come in at the same time as the new authorities.

Foulness Airport

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the question of the siting of the runways and stacking areas and routes of flight paths for the proposed Foulness Airport; when he expects to be able to announce his decisions on these matters; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Walker: As promised, we will be consulting local authorities in Kent and Essex on runway siting and related problems before taking a decision. We hope to start discussions shortly.

Mr. Moate: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the crucial importance of this decision to the people of Kent and the threat it represents to the environment of our county? Will he confirm that he intends to give full priority to the noise factor from the point of view of Kent and that even if extra cost is involved, the runways will be sited as far to the north east as is feasible?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I can guarantee that the siting of the runways will particularly take into account the noise factor. We shall be closely consulting the people of Kent on this subject.

Mr. McCrindle: As at least one of the comprehensive development plans for Foulness shows the feasibility of placing the airport at least seven miles from the coast, with the minimum of noise to the inhabitants of Essex and Kent, may I ask my right hon. Friend to lay that down as a minimum condition for any plan he approves?

Mr. Walker: I have assured the House that, in deciding the basis of the airport and its communications, we shall take as No. 1 priority the environmental considerations.

Sir S. McAdden: May we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend will consult not only the local authorities but also the large number of other organisations, many of which have written to him, which wish to be consulted?

Mr. Walker: I am aware of that and I have been in close consultation with the various organisations and hon. Members, and I shall continue to be so.

Constitution Hill (Coach Parking)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many coach parking spaces have been made available by his Department along the Mall Horse Ride and along Constitution Hill for coach drivers bringing visitors to see the Changing of the Guard; and whether he will make additional spaces available next year.

Mr. Channon: Forty spaces are provided on the Buckingham Palace side of Constitution Hill. Although parking had to be withdrawn last year from the Green Park side of Constitution Hill to provide safe passage for the Queen's Life Guard, 70 additional spaces were made available in the Mall Horse Ride for the entire tourist season for the first time. My right hon. Friend will continue to make these spaces available again during the 1972 tourist season, but it is impossible to provide more parking room without seriously impairing the amenities of the area.

Mr. Prentice: Concerning the last part of that answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to agree that conditions for coach parking are becoming more desperate each summer in Central London? Will he have urgent consultations with the local authorities and the police to see whether, in this area of great tourist attraction, more coach parking facilities can be provided, for the sake of coach drivers and tourists?

Mr. Channon: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says and I assure him that we are in constant touch with the Greater London Council, the Westminster City Council and the police about these matters. He will agree, however, that we do not want to ruin the amenities of the area.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend ensure that not so many coaches are parked in Constitution Hill that the traffic becomes so congested at Hyde Park Corner that it seizes up, which happened in the summer of 1970, with widespread effect on the West End? Will he see that that does not happen again?

Mr. Channon: That is a relevant factor in considering this issue, but it is beyond any powers I may have to give such an absolute guarantee.

Local Authority Tenants (Compensation on Compulsory Acquisition)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants of local authorities were required to forgo all or part of the compensation on the compulsory acquisition of their homes as a condition of the grant of their tenancy.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): This information is not available.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Minister endeavour to obtain this information? Does he agree that whether the figures are large or small, they are certainly substantial, and that those who have been required to forgo compensation in the expectation of receiving premises at the sort of rent which has hitherto been charged by local authorities will be effectively defrauded by being required to pay the fair rents required under the Bill which is at present in Standing Committee? Does the hon. Gentleman agree


that this virtually amounts to obtaining money by false pretences?

Mr. Amery: When an owner asks a council to buy his house and to rehouse him—where rehousing is part of the bargain—I regard that practice as acceptable. Otherwise I regard it as wholly deplorable and unacceptable.

uilding Industry (Capital Investment)

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further capital investment plans he will now bring forward in order to provide employment in the building industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: I cannot anticipate what further measures the Government might take to stimulate employment to this end.

Mr. O'Halloran: That is a disappointing answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the suggestion that he should approach local authorities with a view to bringing forward council-house building programmes by six months in view of the fact that 147,000 building workers are unemployed, over 10,000 of them in the London area, where we have the greatest housing stress?

Mr. Amery: I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Chairman of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers in which he said:
Confidence is returning to the building industry not least because of the successive steps which have been taken by the Government to promote increased activity.
Had the hon. Gentleman had time to read this morning's newspapers he would have read that building in public-sector housing is up by over 40 per cent. compared with November last year.

Mr. Costain: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that more employment could be forthcoming in the building industry if there were a speeding up of planning consents and office development permission?

Mr. Amery: I assure my hon. Friend that the Department of the Environment is very conscious of this problem and speeds things up as much as possible.

Mr. Freeson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the statement of the

Chairman of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers from which he quoted there was no reference to local authority house building, which is the subject of this Question? Is he aware of the major reduction in housing starts by local authorities and that he has powers under Section 91 of the Housing Act, 1957 to do what my hon. Friends have been asking him to do? Will he please use them?

Mr. Amery: There is a Question a little later on the Order Paper, on which I shall be able to show the hon. Gentleman that public-sector housing is very much improving in comparison with last year.

Barrow-Arnside Link Road

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how long the Barrow-Arnside Link Road has been under consideration in his Department; and when he will make a decision on this matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): A link road to the A6 was first proposed to the Minister of Transport in 1963. The inquiry report reached my Department in February, 1971. My right hon. Friend will announce his decision as soon as possible but the proposals and alternative possibilities together with their environmental and economic effects are having to be considered.

Mr. Booth: Will the Minister accept that all those in the area, who have waited for nine years for a decision on this matter, feel that they have been very shabbily treated, and that the Furness Area Development Committee, which has been seeking to retain industry and attract new industry into areas where it is badly needed, feels that unless it has an assurance of this major improvement in inland communications it is doomed to a very difficult task?

Mr. Heseltine: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern to get a quick decision on this matter.

M1 (Watford-Hemel Hempstead)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make the stretch of the M1 between Watford and Hemel Hempstead, on


which many deaths have occurred, into a six-lane carriageway.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly about plans to improve this stretch of the M1.

Mr. Tuck: Is the Minister aware that recent research by the Hertfordshire County Council has revealed that traffic on this stretch, known as the killer stretch, is 160 per cent. more than it ought to be? Why will the Minister not take action? Accidents will not wait. They are mounting and they will not wait while he jumps about like a cat on hot bricks.

Mr. Heseltine: We are certainly aware of this, and we share the hon. Gentleman's concern about accidents. We hope to make a decision shortly.

Building Land

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take further steps to secure the release of more land for private house building.

Mr. Idris Owen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the response to date of local authorities to his Circular 10/70; and if he will make a statement on land availability.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a further statement on the Government's policy to curtail rising land prices.

Mr. Graham Page: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on 8th December last. I then outlined the many steps we are taking to meet the need for additional supplies of land, particularly in pressure areas where the upsurge of demand for housing has created shortages in land appropriate for development.—[Vol. 827, c. 1287–89.]

Mr. Tebbit: Would my hon. Friend agree that although until recently the responsibility for the inflation of house prices has lain at the doors of those who crippled the building industry under the last Government, the new cause in future will arise from a shortage of building

land? Would he take the opportunity today of pledging the Government to a programme under which the release of enough land to build, say, three or four million houses in the next decade is guaranteed?

Mr. Page: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I doubt whether a target of available land is purposeful. I suppose that Hyde Park could be called available land. It is a question of suitability as well as of availability. But, as my hon. Friend invites me, I take the opportunity to pledge that the Government will make every effort to meet the demand for the right land in the right place at the right time.

Mr. Cant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain authorities, such as Stoke-on-Trent, which are on the verge of releasing a considerable acreage of white land for housing purposes, are faced with the fact that, on the one hand, developers will make very substantial personal fortunes and, on the other hand, local authorities will be involved in enormous development costs? Could he offer a development subsidy to these local authorities which are falling in with the Government's plan?

Mr. Page: There are appropriate grants and subsidies for that purpose. I am very pleased to see local authorities developing on a comprehensive development basis. This is what we want to bring forward.

Mr. Arthur Jones: What has my hon. Friend to say on the subject of the lack of availability of residential land for development where there is clear reluctance on the part of county councils to approve planning applications?

Mr. Page: I am not finding a reluctance at present. County councils are bringing forward schemes and considering partnerships with private enterprise and various ways of bringing forward comprehensive developments. It takes time to plan the services for the land.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is not the Minister aware that, judged against the criteria of Government policy to make land available at prices that people can afford, Government policy is completely disastrous? Is


he aware that the price of land is rocketing so much that it has been estimated by Birmingham builders, for instance, to have put £500 on the price of a house in the last three months? In London it is quite impossible for an ordinary working person to obtain a mortgage. For example, a clerk earning £25 a week in London can get a mortgage of only £3,900. What sort of slum will that buy in London? What will the Government do about this?

Mr. Page: As the hon. Gentleman knows, mortgage rates have gone down. On average, land costs account for only the same proportion over the years, and the price of land has risen only as much as wages.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Country Parks

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many country parks were approved in the third quarter of 1971.

Mr. Graham Page: Four country parks were approved for grant by my right hon. Friend during this period.

Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are doing enough to provide parks and other zones for amenity and recreational facilities?

Mr. Page: A lot more can be done. After all, there is a 75 per cent. Exchequer grant for local authorities for approved schemes. Up to date, there are 43 local authority schemes, and I hope that they can go much faster. There are 135 projects under consideration by the Countryside Commission of my Department, and I think that we shall see quicker progress in future.

Mr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that this niggardly figure of four represents a slow down in the number of country parks created? For example, in the first quarter of 1971 10 country parks were created, but in the third quarter only four were created. What will the Minister do about this?

Mr. Page: The figure of four is not representative. As I said, there are 135 under consideration. In 1971, the total number of country parks approved for

grant by my right hon. Friend was 26, which compares well with 11 in 1970. I am disappointed with the figure of four but it is not representative of the whole system.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the Minister say how many of these proposals are concerned with reclaimed land, which offers an interesting possibility for development in this respect?

Mr. Page: I should like the hon. Gentleman to put down a Question about that so that I may study it.

Fluoridation

Mr. Maddan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the context of the reorganisation of water services, if he intends the regional water authorities to have responsibility for fluoridation.

Mr. Peter Walker: Whether fluoride should be added to water in a particular area will be decided by the local health authorities.

Mr. Maddan: Will my right hon. Friend encourage water authorities to encourage health authorities to fluoridate water? Would he agree that improvement in the water supply over the decades has helped to eliminate cholera, typhoid, polio and dysentery? Would he agree that it is impossible to draw a line between purification and improvement—lime is an example—and that therefore fluoridation should be encouraged.

Mr. Walker: On the first half of the question, No. Sir. I do not believe that this is a task for the new water authorities to perform. On the second half of the question, it is up to the health authorities to decide.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Secretary of State do something urgently to cut through the red tape surrounding the situation of eight million Londoners? There are 32 county boroughs. Twenty-seven want to fluoridate, but because it is a metropolitan water authority, one council is sufficient to prevent this happening. Would the Secretary of State do something in order to get the will of the majority acceded to?

Mr. Walker: I will pass this matter on to my right hon. Friend, who is responsible for health matters.

Mr. John Hall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather dangerous to enforce medication of water? If we did that, should we not cater for the most prevalent of modern complaints and put Epsom salts in the water?

Mr. Walker: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion about Epsom salts. But it is not the task of the water authorities to decide on this point.

Mr. Denis Howell: Would the Secretary of State think again about this matter? His answer that it was a matter for health authorities is correct at present, but when we get regional water authorities we shall not have regional health authorities. We shall certainly have a great deal of conflict, and we need some new thinking about this.

Mr. Walker: I will certainly give consideration to any problems which may arise in this sphere. But it is a matter for health authorities, and not water authorities, to decide.

London Green Belt

Mr. William Shelton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce additions to the London Green Belt.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am very anxious to see that throughout the country more areas of Green Belt are approved; but so far as the London area is concerned, any further additions will depend on the outcome of current consultations with the county councils concerned.

Mr. Shelton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he satisfied that the Green Belt around London is adequately protected at present?

Mr. Walker: It is very well protected at present, but in the South-East in general there is a long-overdue need to review the whole Green Belt policy and to extend the amount of Green Belt.

Housebuilding

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to give the total num

ber of houses built in the public sector for 1971 together with the comparative total for 1970 and 1969.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses were completed in the public sector in 1971; how many were started: and what steps he is taking to increase these numbers in the current year.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. The figures for 1971 will not be available until 31st January.

Mr. Skinner: I can understand the Minister's reluctance to get the figures out. Does he realise that these figures, when published, will show that council-house building will be the lowest for a decade? Does not that make an utter farce of what the Prime Minister said on Monday about retraining to get the unemployment level down, when there are 147,000 trained, ready and able construction workers who, if given the chance, would be off the labour exchanges and building the houses which the country needs?

Mr. Amery: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have read the figures which were published this morning, showing that new orders for public-sector housing in November were 45·3 per cent. higher than in October, 1971 and 47·5 per cent. higher than in November, 1970. These are welcome statistics, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming.

Mr. Tebbit: Would my right hon Friend care to remind us all that one local authority in Surrey has recently had to postpone a council-house building programme because of a lack of building workers and that there are very few people who seriously believe this grossly inflated figure of unemployed persons in the building industry?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend is perfectly right in the sense that both the employers and the trade unions tell me that there is a serious shortage of skilled men in many parts of the country and that our programme is in some danger of overheating the industry.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that a very modest improvement in the employment figures could take


place if society generally took advantage of the improvement grants which are available? Local authorities are becoming anxious and tenants who are eager to improve their property are becoming anxious. Is not the date for completion of June, 1973, completely artificial? Will the Minister take account of the views which I have expressed?

Mr. Amery: Much more certainly could be done on the improvement side. However, the improvement figures are nearly 100 per cent. better than those for last year. Naturally I would welcome any additional support which the hon. Gentleman can give in his constituency and throughout the country.

Mr. Simon Mahon: What about the date?

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built in the period from November, 1970 to November, 1971.

Mr. Amery: 375,500 were completed in Great Britain in the period of 13 months from 1st November, 1970, to 30th November, 1971.

Mr. Carter: Are not those deplorably low figures when set against our desperate housing need? In view of the unemployment in the construtcion industry, is not the time ripe for the Government to present the House with a programme of massive urban renewal?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that the figures are disappointing. He will appreciate that completions up to the early months of 1971 depended on starts undertaken before the General Election, so I do not think there is a party issue between us. I have already said, in answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that public-sector building is improving. Private-sector building is booming. I shall be able to make a further statement on 31st January when we have the final figures for the year. I do not think that those will be discouraging.

Mr. Crosland: Even though the public-sector picture may look slightly brighter now, on the basis of the orders only, taking the number of starts, which is the most critical figure, is it not the case that in the third quarter of last year—the last quarter for which we have figures—starts

were 18 per cent. below those for the third quarter of 1970 and, as far as I can trace, lower than in any quarter since 1961? Is not that deplorable?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman seems determined to look a gift horse in the mouth. I hope that he will await the figures which are due to be published on 31st January. Meanwhile, I hope that he will join me in rejoicing at the improvement which is taking place in slum clearance.

Petrol (Injection of Steam)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he had made of apparatus for injecting steam into car petrol, which smooths the combustion process and enable engines to run on lower octane fuels; and what estimate he has made of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide in exhaust gases.

Mr. Peyton: Independent tests have been arranged.

Mr. Dalyell: If this has a future, can it expect any financial advantages in the fight against pollution?

Mr. Peyton: Before I answer that question I should like to see the results of the tests, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that this project is being taken seriously.

European Economic Community (Transport Policy)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in what main areas he proposes to seek to influence the formulation of European Economic Community transport policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: In the economic regulation of transport and the environmental aspects of transport policy, including lorry weights.

Mr. Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, following the statement he gave in The Times recently, that adequate consideration will be given to high British standards in all these fields and that we shall make an impact on European policy?

Mr. Peyton: Yes. I shall certainly do my best to ensure that this is so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister confirm or deny that, come what may, the position is that none of the rules and regulations that have been agreed—the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I showed a parcel of them to the House the other day—is alterable or amendable by the Minister or by the House and that we must agree to them in toto?

Mr. Peyton: We have agreed to the rules already existing in the Community. That does not mean that those rules are not subject to discussion in the future.

Mr. Lewis: Discussion, but not amendment.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before we start talking about influencing European policy, will the Minister say what is the present policy of his Department with regard to large vehicles in Britain, even before we join the E.E.C.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very large numbers of articulated vehicles, which greatly exceed in length, size and weight the limits permitted under the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Act, are infesting British roads? Many of them originate from as far afield as Eastern Europe. They are constantly passing North into Manchester and other places and are a complete nuisance and an offence against laws passed by the House of Commons.

Mr. Peyton: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of this problem, which has existed for many years. A Bill which was recently introduced in another place has now reached this House and is designed to do precisely that for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I take it that that Bill will have the almost unanimous support of the House of Commons.

Sir R. Cary: I assume that we shall be allowed to keep our existing axle weights and that they will not be increased in line with those existing in the Common Market.

Mr. Peyton: The Community has not agreed on an axle weight. I believe that the retention of the 10-ton limit is very important indeed. There is no widespread agreement throughout the Continent of Europe on this important subject, but I think it essential that we should have in mind the strength of our roads and bridges and the vibration caused to ancient buildings by a heavy increase in the laden weights.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the difference between permitted axleweight and size of lorries in the countries of the European Economic Community compared with Great Britain; and, on the basis that carriers are to have mutual access, what is his estimate of the cost of strengthening the bridges of Great Britain to stand the additional loads.

Mr. Peyton: The European Economic Community has not yet agreed harmonised standards for vehicles weights and dimensions.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister use his influence to ensure that we do not agree to the increase? Will he pay heed to the views expressed on both sides of the House and realise that the large articulated lorries now travelling on our roads are an abomination from the point of view of the nuisance they create and the number of decibels of sound they emit? Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government that this is likely to be one of the hidden costs of the bargain we have made and that there will be many others about which the House can only guess at the moment, as we are so short of information?

Mr. Peyton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take this matter very seriously. However, I hope that he will not go too far down the road in regarding all heavy lorries, wherever they are, as a nuisance. They make a very useful and valuable contribution to our transport system.

M1 (Tinsley Viaduct)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Tinsley Viaduct section of the Ml will be open to four-lane traffic.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The section of Ml carried by the top deck of Tinsley Viaduct is dual three lanes of which dual two lanes are open to traffic.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development stated in reply to a Question by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), proposals for strengthening the viaduct should be available by the end of April, 1972. Until these are received I cannot estimate how long it will take to put them into effect.

Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this important viaduct has been restricted to two-lane traffic since June, 1971, and, in view of what he has just said, seems likely to be so restricted for a further six to 12 months? Does he think it good enough, in the face of current unemployment and surplus factory capacity, that there should be delays of up to a year before undertaking necessary modifications of this kind?

Mr. Heseltine: Until I have the report, I cannot decide whether the modifications are necessary. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that public safety is paramount in such cases.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the information which he conveyed to the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce in a letter has caused concern in Sheffield? While I accept that there are technical difficulties—the engineers recently had a meeting on standards and improvements—is there no way of improving the position and having normal traffic across the viaduct, which is in a steel city, as soon as possible?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot give any undertakings before seeing the report, which is due in April.

Accidents (Lamp Standards)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of collisions with standard lamp columns has resulted in fatal and serious accidents to car users and passengers in each of the last three years.

Mr. Peyton: It is not possible to answer this Question in these terms. But of the accidents which resulted in personal injury, the percentages which resulted in serious or fatal injury were in 1971, 45 per cent.; in 1970, 41 per cent.; and in 1969, 46 per cent.

Mr. Montgomery: In view of the number of bad accidents caused by cars crashing into standard lamp columns, will my right hon Friend consider issuing a circular to local authorities asking them whether they would consider the use of breakaway lamp standards, in the hope that this will help road safety?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. Breakaway lamp standards are already under fairly active consideration and test. When

any useful information is available I will consider circulating it to local authorities.

Public Transport Investment

Mr. Roger White: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the major public transport investment projects approved for grants since 1968; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: Since the inception of the infrastructure grant scheme in October, 1968, grants totalling £107 million have been approved. Of this sum about £100 million is accounted for by 11 major schemes, details of which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the South-East of England, and particularly Kent, we feel that a forward project with regard to the E.E.C. is required?

Mr. Peyton: I will bear that in mind.

Following is the information:


Major Projects Approved for Infrastructure Grant Since 1968



Cost of Project
Grant Authorised



£m
£m


Extension of Victoria Line from Victoria to Brixton
23
17


Runcorn Busway
3
2


Liverpool Terminal Loop
12
9


Great Northern Suburban electrification and resignalling
35
26


Fleet Line (Western Section)
26
20


Bradford Interchange
7
2


Redditch Busway
4
1*


Improvement of south-east approaches to B.R. London termini
14
9


London Transport rolling stock
12
9


Feltham area resignalling
6
4


Bond Street Station reconstruction
4
2


*With prospect of further grant later.

Thomas Cook and Son, Limited

Mr. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made regarding the sale of Thomas Cook and Son, Limited; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: A prospectus was published on 16th December.

Mr. Fox: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind the intense interest in the matter on this side of the House, will he give an assurance that he will keep the House fully informed at all stages?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir, of course.

Mr. Carter: Will B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. be permitted to make a bid for Thomas Cook?

Mr. Peyton: I am not responsible for the actions of either of the nationalised air corporations, but no one has been inhibited from putting in a bid.

Mr. Rost: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the general public, particularly the small investor, should also be allowed the opportunity to buy a stake in Thomas Cook? Would not a public offer for sale by subscription be a method to be considered?

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend has raised that point on a number of occasions, including last night. The advice given to me was that the best way of securing the best price for the public interest was to proceed along the path we have taken.

Docklands Study

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings are involved in housing schemes which are being held back because of the Docklands Study.

Mr. Peter Walker: I can well understand the hon. Member's concern on this topic. There is a Greater London Council development of 420 dwellings at Deptford Wharf and a few small schemes which are being delayed.
We are already seeing whether some tens of acres can be released quickly in the London Docks and at Beckton.
The study should result in substantial new areas being allocated for housing.

Mr. Mikardo: I appreciate that the Docklands Study is very worthwhile, and I hope, as I am sure does the right hon. Gentleman, that some good will come out of it. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware—he has indicated that he is—that there is great urgency about the matter? I hope that he will do his best to push it along fast.

Mr. Walker: We have seen the consultants and I have asked them to release such land as can definitely be released for housing as quickly as possible.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), may I say that he and I are very concerned about the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Beckton. The Newham Council is very anxious to get the project moving. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his undoubted knowledge and expertise to get those concerned in the Civil Service cracking, because West Ham—Newham, as it is now called—wants action on the Beckton site.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend will agree that it would be disastrous if this unique opportunity to develop 2,000 acres and to improve the environment of the East End were lost. Within that context, we must wait for the study. Apart from doing that, I shall certainly do everything I can to hurry up development.

Easingwold (Street Lighting)

Sir Robin Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to bring to the attention of the highway authority responsible for street lighting on the A19 in the town of Easingwold his letter of 26th October, 1971, to local authorities on the subject of street lighting.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Easingwold Parish Council is responsible for the existing street lighting, which is only footway lighting, and I asked rural district councils to bring my letter of 26th October to the attention of parish councils who are street lighting authorities.

Sir Robin Turton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the town of Easingwold is the only stretch of the A 19 trunk road inadequately lit, and that elderly people are afraid to cross the street after dark? Surely, as a trunk road and street lighting authority, my hon. Friend has a responsibility and should not disregard his own circular?

Mr. Heseltine: Additional funds are becoming available for trunk road lighting. A new scheme is under consideration, and we shall let my right hon. Friend know the results as soon as we have made up our mind on the matter.

Motor Vehicle Exhaust Systems (Pollution)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now introduce legislation governing pollution levels from motor vehicle exhaust systems.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have almost completed my review of pollution from motor vehicles. I will be making an announcement in the near future.
I did in fact yesterday have talks with the French Government and did agree with them an immediate exchange of information which should assist further consideration of this topic.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Whilst I welcome my right lion. Friend's statement that the legislation will come forward very soon, may we have an assurance from him that he will make it binding on other-than-new vehicles, because other-than-new vehicles are always the worst offenders?

Mr. Walker: There is a wide range of topics concerning emissions from motor vehicles. We are pushing research as quickly as possible on a filter that could be fitted to all vehicles, but it may not be possible to apply other regulations we might make, such as regulations about the future construction of an engine, to existing vehicles.

Mr. Loughlin: While I appreciate further steps to deal with the pollution problem, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are an enormous number of vehicles on the road, particularly heavy lorries, that are infringing the existing regulations? Therefore, will he take steps, possibly with the police authorities, to see that the existing regulations are observed?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I should warmly welcome far more enforcement than takes place in a whole range of activities. One is fumes from vehicles, another is noise from vehicles, and another is the dropping of litter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Benyon.

Mr. Benyon: Question No. 38.

Mr. Idris Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that we have jumped from Question No. 36 to Question No. 38?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's Question, No. 37, was answered with No. 18.

Office Development (Greater London)

Mr. Benyon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has reached a decision concerning future office development in Greater London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: My aim is to continue to encourage those concerns which can do so to operate outside London, while ensuring that those who can best contribute to the economy by being in London are able to operate or develop there.

Mr. Benyon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that London of all the major capital cities of the Western world is in the best position to improve its environment because of its falling population? If the G.L.C. proposals to increase office employment by 75,000 in the next decade came to fruition, does he agree that there would be absolutely no possibility of reaching that goal?

Mr. Peyton: I assure my hon. Friend that the considerations he has just expressed are not ignored. The important thing is to have some kind of balanced measure of control in the South-East, where there is great congestion, and at the same time to give reasonable opportunities in London.

Mr. Crosland: May the House be informed whether the Minister responsible for transport has taken over planning responsibility from the Minister responsible for planning?

Mr. Peyton: That was announced some months ago. I do my best to satisfy any questions which the right hon. Gentleman has to ask on the subject.

Private Rent Assessments

Mr. Ronald Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions which govern the rights of private tenants to


discuss rent proposals with the rent officer and the rent assessment committee, and their rights to expert representation before these persons.

Mr. Amery: The tenant's rights to discuss with rent officers and, on appeal, with rent assessment committees the fair rent proposed are set out in Schedule 6 to the Rent Act, 1968. Where the landlord first applies for a Certificate of Fair Rent, the tenant's similar rights are set out in Schedule 7 to the Act. The specific rights to be represented by any person are provided in paragraphs 4(3) and 8 of Schedule 6 and paragraphs 4(2), 7(3) and 9(b) of Schedule 7.

Mr. Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he explain why he is refusing to give the same rights under the Housing Finance Bill to council tenants?

Mr. Amery: Council tenants are being given for the first time the opportunity to appeal in writing against assessments. Under the present system they are given no choice of any kind.

National Parks

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him expressing disapproval of his proposals for the reform of the administrative framework of the national parks.

Mr. Peter Walker: Such representations have been received from voluntary amenity bodies and private individuals.

Mr. Clark: Does the Secretary of State realise that there is a great disparity between the most effective and the least effective national parks and that there is considerable public concern that his proposals would reduce the national parks to the level of the least effective?

Mr. Walker: That is not true. We have already announced a series of proposals recommended to us by the Countryside Commission to improve and strengthen the administration of national parks. I shall try to bring forward legislation to improve the present administrative set-up and to see that the national parks are better staffed than in the past and that the lessons from the best are applied to the worst.

General Improvement Areas

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many general improvement areas have been declared since January, 1971.

Mr. Channon: A total of 125 have been declared in England.

Mr. Chapman: That is a very welcome answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that from every point of view—social, political and economic—renovation is far better than demolition, and will he expedite general improvement areas in the cities so that the near-slum areas of today become the modern, fashionable areas of tomorrow?

Mr. Channon: I agree that we should do everything we can to stimulate general improvement areas. That is the general view on both sides of the House.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that in the city of Manchester many more such areas could be declared, thus assisting us in our grave housing difficulties and alleviating the grave unemployment among construction workers? Will he at last relent and extend the provisions of the Housing Act, 1971 to the city?

Mr. Channon: The provisions of the Act were limited to the development areas and other assisted areas, and the hon. Gentleman knows the reasons that prompted that decision.

Water and Sewerage Services

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the comments he has received from public bodies on his consultative document on the proposed reorganisation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. Any publicity for any comments on this proposed reorganisation must be a matter for those making the comments.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the consultative document left a great deal to consult about, that in this case the general principle of multi-purpose authorities has been agreed and that it would be a great help to the good will of everyone concerned if the Minister would publish


these comments so that we know what the major bodies concerned are thinking?

Mr. Walker: I do not think that there is any need to do so. I am perfectly willing to have the maximum dialogue and discussion with the major bodies concerned in this sphere. I am certain that there will be no complaint from them that they have not been fully consulted and have not had every opportunity to put their views.

Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that sailing clubs which use the canals are concerned about this reorganisation, and will he have consultations with them?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that when he announced his proposals he told the House that he had consulted the bodies in charge of canals and the water industry, but these responsible bodies have denied that they have been properly consulted? Is he further aware that the proposals for the canals have caused dismay throughout the country?

Mr. Walker: That may be due to the completely inaccurate suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that considerable consultation is going on and that there is no complaint about the degree of consultation which is taking place.

Housing Finance Bill (Representations)

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many organisations representing council tenants requested meetings with him or his Ministerial colleagues to discuss the effects on tenants of the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Amery: Six, Sir.

Mr. Leonard: Does not that reply indicate that the excuse which Ministers have given that representatives of council tenants are asking for too many deputations to be received to discuss the Bill is utterly bogus, and does it not further indicate the contempt which Ministers are showing to council tenants in imposing this harsh and repressive Measure on them without any consultation whatever?

Mr. Amery: On the contrary, I think the hon. Gentleman shows himself to be a bogus statistician. Others have not asked because we made it clear that we should not receive them.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite are making grave misrepresentations and distortions about the effect of the Bill? Does he not consider it right to give the maximum publicity to the beneficial effects of the Bill and so to avoid groundless fears being caused to tenants?

Mr. Amery: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend and I are doing everything we can to explain the Bill to the public. I have no doubt that events will fully justify our forecasts and show how bogus are the claims of the Opposition.

Mr. Crosland: Is the Minister aware that by far the most serious misrepresentations about the Bill have been made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in a recent "Panorama" programme and when meeting a deputation of tenants from his constituency? If Ministers would stop giving totally untruthful accounts of the likely effects of the Bill, everyone would be much better off.

Mr. Amery: Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee over many hours, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could make more misrepresentations than he has done.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the proposed division of functions between county councils and district councils in the Local Government Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Graham Page: There has been a wide welcome for those provisions in the Local Government Bill which allocate to district councils more functions than were originally proposed in the White Paper. Various further Amendments have been tabled for consideration by the Standing Committee now examining the Bill in detail.

Mr. Lane: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the view of many people not enough of the functions most relevant to local life are assigned to the district councils? In his continuing efforts to get the balance absolutely right, will he look especially at traffic management, parks and libraries in cities?

Mr. Page: These matters will come up for discussion in debates on the Bill. I am satisfied that we have generally achieved the right division of functions between the counties and the districts.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that many county boroughs, for example Southampton, are extremely upset that, in addition to the functions mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), education and social services are also to be taken away from them and passed to a rather abstract county authority?

Mr. Page: It should not be overlooked that those county boroughs will now have representation within the counties, which they have never had before, and that the functions given to the districts will enable them to build up the character of their towns.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend give special attention to the representation which has been made to him on behalf of parish councils to ensure that the parishes most likely to be affected by planning decisions are consulted before any decision is taken?

Mr. Page: In answer to a Written Question I have already said that we shall provide for parishes to have notice of planning applications and, if necessary, this will be put into legislation later. Otherwise, there is much which we are bringing into the Local Government Bill to strengthen the parish system.

Mr. Cant: I appreciate that much of the discussion on the Bill is taking place in Committee, but would not the Minister, as a matter of general principle, agree that authorities like Stoke-on-Trent, with a population of over 250,000, are, as future district councils, entitled to more powers? I ask him not to listen to the shrill cries of the Tory counties who seem anxious to take back again those small extra planning powers that, in his graciousness, the Secretary of State

for the Environment has given to the district councils.

Mr. Page: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to hold the balance between the counties and the districts. I believe that we have the line of functions right. There may be a need for some tidying up on one side or other of the line, but I believe that in general we have the right line, and I will not give way in either direction.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Crosland: On a point of order. The House understands that a Minister in answering supplementary questions may occasionally, quite unintentionally, mislead the House on a comparatively minor point. This afternoon the Minister for Local Government and Development, in answer to a supplementary question, said that wages had been going up as fast as land prices. Since wages are now going up at the rate of only about 7 per cent. a year, whereas land prices are going up by about double that amount and in some parts of the country by as much as four times that amount, may I give the Minister an opportunity to correct what was outrageously inaccurate?

Mr. Speaker: I do not detect any point of order.

EDUCATION (JAMES COMMISSION'S REPORT)

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order. Yesterday I raised a matter of importance to back benchers concerning the availability of documents. The Report of the James Committee was not available in the Vote Office yesterday, although today there have been articles on it in the leading morning newspapers. Hon. Members have been unable to get a copy of this document. Had they gone to Her Majesty's Stationery Office in Holborn, they would have discovered that copies of the report had been sold out 20 minutes after the office opened yesterday. Copies have now arrived in the Vote Office 24 hours late, but some of my hon. Friends have been embarrassed by the Press having asked them for comments upon the James Report and being unable


to make comments because copies of the report have not been available.
This is the second occasion on which this Department has been involved in controversy about the publication of a major report. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how this can be avoided in future.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. When the hon. Gentleman properly raised this matter yesterday I said that I would look into it. As a result, copies of the report are in the Vote Office today. I will look into the point about the future, which I appreciate.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has replied to my hon. Friend who raised a matter about which the House is bound to be concerned. This appears to be a most flagrant example of the failure of the Department to deal with the matter properly. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the Minister responsible for the Department will make a statement to the House on the subject, so that we may be able to cross-examine to see how this occurred, and make sure that nothing of the sort shall ever occur in that Department again and that other Departments will learn from the example?

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. I regard myself, as Leader of the House, as responsible to the House for matters of this kind. If anyone wishes to complain about how things have been done, they should complain to me. I am quite prepared to receive such a complaint.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be getting a long way from a point of order. Mr. Foot.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether I may put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman. You agreed that the right hon. Gentleman should reply to a question put by my hon. Friend. Had there been anything out of order on

that point I am sure you would have intervened then. You agreed that he should make a reply—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not understand the hon. Member's preamble. I have called him.

Mr. Foot: I am trying to determine whether you called me on a point of order or to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman. If you are calling me to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman, as I wish to do, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a firm undertaking to the House, not merely that he will inquire into this matter, because that is not sufficient, but that either he or the Minister directly responsible will make a further statement to the House so that the House itself shall be able to determine that we shall not have a recurrence of this event?

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Member to raise a point of order on the distribution of a particular document. Perhaps I was wrong, because it has led to this discussion. The proper time for this sort of discussion is at Business Question Time. It is not a point of order for me now.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order. If there is any bogus point of order, I am sure Mr. Speaker will raise the matter. It is apparent that Mr. Speaker does not say so. You permitted my hon. Friend to rise a matter which affected many hon. Members, that is to say, that documents which should have been available to the House were distributed to the Press in a way contrary to the arrangements that are understood to be proper in the House. It was perfectly proper that you should allow my hon. Friend to raise the matter and, if I may say so without disagreement from the Government side of the House, perfectly proper that the right hon. Gentleman should make a reply.
All I am saying is that, that procedure having been permitted according to the precedents of the House, I should now be able to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that the matter shall not be left merely on a statement that lie will inquire into it, but that he will give an undertaking to the House


that he or another Minister will make a statement on the matter.
I submit that that is a perfectly proper suggestion to be made, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been eager to say right away that he would give that undertaking.

Mr. Whitelaw: I did not want to delay the business of the House, which is of importance. I thought I was taking the proper action, immediately the matter had been raised yesterday, in making sure that the documents were provided for the House today. That is my job. I have also said that I will look into the whole circumstances, and I will. If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman wishes to question me during questions on business tomorrow on the result of the investigation and what will happen in the future, I shall be pleased to answer. If that is not satisfactory, hon. Members may question me at other times.
I have nothing I wish to hide. I only want to do what is right for the House. I think it is perfectly proper that I should answer questions at Business Question Time tomorrow rather than setting aside a special time for a statement. I do not want to make a business of this. I will do whatever is the wish of the House.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order. The opportunity that the House has to put questions on business tomorrow relates to the Business for next week and the weeks that follow. As has happened on previous occasions, a backbench Member who raised general questions about the publication of documents could be ruled out of order during discussion on the business for next week. It is not satisfactory either for you to rule or for the right hon. Gentleman to say

that we will deal with the matter on Thursday as a matter of routine. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to satisfy the House, all he has to do is to say that the Minister will come to the House and explain why this state of affairs has arisen and how it is proposed to ensure that it shall not happen again.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Opposition half Supply day but I will allow the questions to continue.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. As the Leader of the House has been kind enough to see that the documents are now available, will he also carry out the promise he has made on the Treaty of Accession which has been published in the Press and which lion. Members have been unable to obtain?

Mr. Speaker: We must now move on.

BILL PRESENTED

TRANSPORT (GRANTS) BILL

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. John Peyton, Sir John Eden, Mr. Maurice MacMillan, and Mr. Eldon Griffiths, presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to authorise the Secretary of State to make grants to the British Railways Board and to the National Bus Company, and to make contributions to expenditure by the British Railways Board or their subsidiaries intended to promote employment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS

3.40 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the rights of patients to privacy when receiving hospital treatment under the National Health Service, and in regard to medical experiments on human beings.
The Bill which I seek leave to introduce enters a comparatively new area of consumer protection and underlines the rights of patients in one particular respect. Although the principle of the patient's right to unconditional treatment in any hospital is now well established, only a few hospitals completely respect that right in practice. Although successive Ministers responsible for the Health Service have confirmed that right and have stated that no teaching hospital makes treatment conditional, the Patients' Association which is very zealous on behalf of patients's rights continues to receive letters from patients and intending patients about hospitals which completely disregard that right.
I have received many letters expressing the shock which people have experienced when they have found themselves lying in a hospital bed, suddenly surrounded by a group of students accompanying the consultant. Many such patients had hardly realised they were in a teaching hospital and they were completely unprepared for the experience of being used for teaching purposes, including questioning and examination by students. For some patients that experience flatly been so traumatic that they have flatly refused to go back to hospital again whatever the need may be.
I had one very grave case reported to me of a patient who had recovered from breast cancer but her experience in being used for teaching purposes in the hospital, in addition to the suffering of her condition, made her determined not to go to see her doctor when fresh, alarming symptoms occurred. She still has not done so because she will not go back to hospital for the necessary treatment.
A young girl who was an out-patient for psychiatric treatment was so alarmed and concerned by the constant questioning and discussion about her case which was undertaken by students that she too

has refused to continue with treatment. Another woman patient with a history of mental trouble, only two months after the death of her husband reported:
In a very painful interview I was asked to describe my husband's death to the consultant and a group of student doctors. I felt that I was being used as an object lesson for the sake of the doctors and I received no help at all.
That case was apparently what is known as a "case conference" and there were nine people present including a ward sister, social workers and an occupational therapist. I appreciate that this case conference was probably quite necessary for the woman's condition and I realise the difficulty of this type of case, but surely some explanation could have been given to her which would have prevented the outrage to her feelings and susceptibilities which she experienced and which have had a lasting effect on her.
What can happen is illustrated by a maternity case which was reported at the end of last year. The patient's first baby had been damaged in delivery by a medical student and she was naturally particularly concerned about her second confinement. She attended the hospital clinic where it was the practice for two students, in this patient's words, " … to be let loose on the patients before the doctor came ". In her case the two students described the awful mistakes students can make, and she was naturally very upset.
On the advice of the Patients' Association she wrote to the consultant and the practice of having two students present was dropped. She was also assured that she would not be attended by a student at delivery. The hospital added these extraordinary words:
This is open to all nervous mothers-to-be but, of course, not advertised.
I am sure that any mother and very many other people concerned would ask, "Why not? Why should the patient not be told that they do not need to have students present?" It is precisely because of this hospital attitude that I am convinced that the patients' rights need to be written into legislation.
As it is, one elderly lady categorically said that when she asked if she could be examined without students being present the consultant said, "No, that is the price one pays for the superior care given in


teaching hospitals". The hospital has denied this, but the lady concerned sticks by her statement.
In contrast, and being quite fair, I must say that I have had a number of letters from people who were very proud to be used to help further the cause of medical science, and I have received reports from former patients of treatment by students in which they very happily co-operated because of the kind and courteous manner of both the students and consultants concerned. This is really the key to the whole problem. We cannot legislate for human behaviour, but what can be done is to write into the law the patient's right to refuse to be used as teaching material and the hospital's duty to inform him of that right.
That is the purpose of this Bill. It will then be incumbent upon all hospitals to follow the example of the best and to seek the co-operation of the patients with the same consideration as the practitioners of any other profession have to show in securing the confidence and the cooperation of their clients. In the process it would seem that hospitals will increasingly have to follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, namely that students should observe only in very small numbers, that patients should be consulted first by the teacher and that no hospital should make treatment conditional on the patient's co-operation in teaching. If these rules are followed the majority of patients would agree to co-operate quite happily and the teaching services of the hospital would not suffer. They would rather be improved by the development of a more sensitive patient approach which would be beneficial to the students when they begin practising.
Because of the public concern that has been aroused by reports of human

guinea pigs in hospitals, I have included a reference to this in the Bill. Hospitals have been asked to establish ethical committees, and the Department of Health and Social Security is at present making inquiries about how many hospitals have done this and how the committees are functioning.
I am sure that members of the public, and after all any member of the public is liable at any time through illness or injury to find himself in hospital, would be reassured if all clinical investigations on human beings in hospitals which are not of direct benefit to the patient concerned had to be referred to the hospital ethical committees for approval. I have written this provision into the Bill.
I do not think it is necessary to add that the sponsors of the Bill have the greatest respect for the work of the teaching hospitals and a deep appreciation of the need for students to have practical experience in them. We believe that the services and the teaching which these hospitals provide is perfectly compatible with respect for the rights and wishes of patients and that teaching services will be greatly improved if the provisions of this Bill become law.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Blenkinsop, Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Fenner, Mr. Kilfedder, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. Pardoe, Mr. Pavitt, Miss Pike, and Mr. Willey.

RIGHTS OF PATIENTS

Bill to clarify the rights of patients to privacy when receiving hospital treatment under the National Health Service, and in regard to medical experiments on human beings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th February and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY] [First Part],—considered.

RHODESIA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: We have asked for this emergency debate on Rhodesia in order to express our disappointment and disgust at the Foreign Secretary's failure to make sure that the Smith régime kept the promise it had made to him to allow normal political activity during the test of acceptability, and also to seek answers to certain important questions on which the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have promised us answers in the last few weeks.
We on this side of the House have never disguised our view that the Foreign Secretary's proposals for Rhodesia represent a betrayal of the five principles and a sell-out of the African majority in that country, but we have always recognised, nevertheless, that if the Rhodesian people as a whole do find them acceptable then this fact must weigh heavily with us in taking our final decision in this House on the proposals, and I said this in the first debate after the Foreign Secretary's return. For this reason we attach the greatest possible importance to the nature of the machinery used for the test of acceptability and to the conditions in which this machinery is used to carry out the test.
I think that any external observer who came to the problem for the first time would feel, as the Foreign Secretary himself did in 1964, that the only satisfactory test of acceptability would be a referendum, because there is no parliamentary democracy in Rhodesia, and there is no means other than a referendum for finding out with obsolute certainty what the views of the majority in Rhodesia are. I must say that I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, as

Vice-Chairman of the Commission, described the idea of a referendum as ludicrous; particularly I was surprised as the Foreign Secretary himself supported this idea in 1964. Of course, we all know that Mr. Smith would not permit a referendum and that a referendum carried out under the Smith regime would have no guarantee of being carried out with total honesty—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Oh!

Mr. Healey: Oh, yes, certainly—and for this reason the Government, naturally enough, proposed to carry out their own test of acceptability through a commission.
Again, the House is well aware that we on this side regard the composition of the Pearce Commission as quite unsatisfactory. It does not, as we proposed, contain an African of distinction who might be expected to carry the confidence of the majority of the population in Rhodesia itself, a man like Robert-Gardner or Mr. Adu, of Ghana; it does not contain a Churchman with knowledge of Africa, like Bishop Skelton or Bishop Reeves; it does not even contain a white man who is known to have the confidence of all races, like Mr. Lester Pearson or Mr. Malcolm Macdonald. We deeply deplore the fact that the Commission is unbalanced, as, in our view, it is.
I must say that anyone who watched Sir Frederick Pedler, who was appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Commission by the Foreign Secretary—who watched him on Panorama on Monday attempting to answer questions on how the Commission prepared for its task must have the gravest doubts about the way in which the Foreign Secretary made his choice, and, indeed, about the way in which the Commission approached its task. I think that none of us can feel satisfied with the reason the Foreign Secretary gave for not attempting to replace Sir Frederick, when he found he had to resign from the Commisison, with a man who falls into one of the three categories I have mentioned. His only reason for not doing so was that there was not time, but a week later he appointed two new commissioners to carry out the onerous job of carrying out the test on the ground in the tribal areas.
I think it was the view of most British newspaper correspondents who covered the first few days of the Pearce Commission's presence in Rhodesia that it had got off to a very bad start.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): The right hon. Gentleman is not, I hope, criticising the Commission? He does know that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Monday said:
We want to get an honest answer out of this Commission and it wants to give one."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 985.]
So apparently his own Leader has quite a high opinion of the Commission.

Mr. Healey: No, what my right hon. Friend said was that the Commission wants to give one, and I do not for one moment dispute that, but the way in which the Commission set about its task was in many respects very unsatisfactory and was criticised as such in, for example, an impressive leading article in The Financial Times last week. One of the points of criticism I might well repeat since the Foreign Secretary appears to have none. The first point was that it appeared to acquiesce in Mr. Smith's refusal to interview Mr. Sithole.
Secondly, the Commission having sensibly issued forms for the Africans to fill in to express their views, withdrew them after seeing Mr. Smith. Incidentally, the House will now know that the reason Lord Pearce gave for withdrawing the forms was quite different from the one which the Foreign Secretary gave on the very same day for withdrawing the forms.
There is still dissatisfaction, I can tell him, on this side of the House that the Pearce Commission has chosen to shut its office in Salisbury during the only hours in which it is accessible to most Africans, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this point and give us some assurance later in the debate.
Finally, there have been cases, quoted in the newspapers, in which the Commissioners on one or two occasions have appeared to argue in favour of the settlement proposals rather than simply to explain what they mean.
In other respects the Commission's action has been perfectly satisfactory, and, indeed, encouraging. A fortnight ago Lord Pearce asked Mr. Smith to explain and to comment on the complaints which had been made to him by the leaders of the African National Council as to the interference with its normal political activity in Rhodesia during the test. Bishop Muzorewa had pointed out that 200 meetings in tribal trust areas had been refused and that many meetings in the urban areas had been barred ostensibly for reasons connected with insurance. Since then the African National Council has complained that a hundred of its active members have been imprisoned without charge. We are told that Lord Pearce has asked Mr. Smith for an explanation of these facts but has at yet had no reply.
Secondly, we are very satisfied that the Commission should have asked Mr. Smith to explain the arrest of Mr. Garfield Todd, an ex-Prime Minister of Rhodesia, and of his daughter, and of a number of leading African nationalists, particularly Mr. Chinamano and his wife. It has asked, moreover, why Mr. Todd is being kept in a cell like a common convicted criminal, although, as far as we are aware, no charge has been brought against him. We are told that Lord Pearce has also raised with Mr. Smith his refusal to allow Sir Dingle Foot to enter Rhodesia to advise the African National Council. Lord Pearce has now asked that the Commission should be allowed to interview Mr. Sithole in gaol. I hope we shall have some clarity from one of the Government speakers on this matter later in the debate. The complaint from this side of the House is that although Lord Pearce has asked these questions he has had no reply, and that the Foreign Secretary, so far as we know, has done nothing to help Lord Pearce to get replies to these questions.
Moreover, Lord Pearce, on 21st January, issued a statement in which he pointed out that to gaol people simply to silence them was not to allow normal political activity. We have had no comment from the Government on this statement. Lord Pearce also pointed out in that statement that he was not satisfied that normal political activities were


allowed in the tribal trust areas, although he admitted—the Foreign Secretary rightly made this point on Monday—that it was difficult to establish the facts as to whether any political activity at all had been permitted throughout the trust areas. It appears that some political activity has taken place.
It was the clear duty of the Pearce Commission to raise these questions as soon as they were raised with the Commission by Rhodesians. It was the clear duty of the Foreign Secretary to ensure that they got satisfactory replies. But what has the Foreign Secretary done to support his own Commission? The Commission has charged the Smith régime with not permitting normal political activity, in violation of a direct promise made by the Smith régime to the Foreign Secretary and transmitted by the Foreign Secretary to this House.
What the Foreign Secretary made completely clear on Monday was that he had not the slightest idea what was going on in Rhodesia and gave no evidence of the slightest desire to find out. Mr. Derek Marks, writing today in the Daily Express, a paper whose owner has played a leading rôle in helping to negotiate the settlement and which is totally committed to the settlement, had to point out:
The most extraordinary feature in the whole Rhodesia business at the present time is the apparent complete lack of communication between London and Salisbury.
That is the Editor of the Daily Express writing in Sir Max Aitken's newspaper this morning.
Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House how it is that, when he had some 30 commissioners, appointed by himself, on the ground in Rhodesia, when he had a diplomatic representative permanently established in Salisbury, he had not the slightest idea what was going on, and then, when he sent out a Foreign Office Official last Wednesday to find out what was going on, he seemed, when he came to the House on Monday, to have no more information than he had five days earlier?
Instead of facing Mr. Smith with the violation of his pledges, the right hon. Gentleman tried in this House to excuse Mr. Smith's behaviour. In answer to a question on Monday, he uttered the following extraordinary statement:

…I could not question Mr. Smith's right to maintain security provided the minimum of force was used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 986.]
The Foreign Secretary of Great Britain asserts the right of a rebel against the Queen to shoot British subjects in a British territory. He talks of "minimum force": 15 Africans have been killed in the last fortnight by the Rhodesian forces, about 50 have been wounded, not by rioters but by the security forces of the Smith régime, and hundreds have been gaoled. Does the Foreign Secretary regard this as "minimum force"? Would he regard this as a proper way for any colonial régime in Britain to have behaved in similar circumstances?
Yet Lord Pearce told the country in a television interview last night that no threats of violence have at any time been made to the Commission in its work, that violence has not been used anywhere that the Commission itself was working, and we know from the Press—although not from the Foreign Secretary—that the first case in which violence appears to have occurred in a political context, rather than in an industrial dispute context, was in Gwelo, and that there violence was used by the Africans only after the Rhodesian police had fired tear gas against a peaceful demonstration of Africans who were seeking an interview with the commissioners.
The Foreign Secretary went one worse than this. In seeking to excuse his inertia and complacency about what was going on, he said that he had no power in Rhodesia. That of course is true. And he cited the inability of the Labour Government to ensure that certain things that they wished to happen in Rhodesia actually happened.
But the situation of the present Government vis-à-vis Rhodesia is one which has not previously existed since the unilateral declaration of independence. The Foreign Secretary has signed a formal agreement with the Smith regime in which each side undertook certain obligations to the other.
It is interesting to quote what Mr. Smith himself said about this in his television broadcast last Friday in Rhodesia. Speaking of the proposals he said:
As you are all aware, we accept these proposals as part of a package deal in which


we made certain concessions in our present constitution in return for recognition of our independence and the removal of sanctions.
In other words, Mr. Smith regards the recognition of his independence by Britain and the removal of sanctions as something of great value to his régime, something in return for which he is prepared to make what he regards as certain concessions to the British Government.
Of course the Foreign Secretary has power in this situation. He has the right and the ability to cancel our part of the agreement if Mr. Smith breaks his side of the agreement. The key to this situation is the maintenance of sanctions. The Minister of State told the House as recently as 10th November, when we were discussing the sanctions Order:
I therefore ask the House unhesitatingly to give its full support to the Order. To show a united front on this issue is the best way in which we can give my right hon. Friend the complete backing in this difficult task which I think he is entitled to expect…I should like to think that we shall have a unanimous view on this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 1188.]
In other words, the Government's undertaking to maintain sanctions unless they get their way is an indispensable weapon in their negotiation with the rebel régime.
No doubt this is the reason why on 25th November, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) asked:
…is it understood that if the test of acceptability is not passed this agreement has no validity and that it will still be the duty of this country, with the help of the United Nations, to endeavour by sanctions or other means to restore the rule of law in Rhodesia?"—
a very sensible question—the Foreign Secretary replied:
If the test of acceptability proves that the Rhodesians do not want this arrangement and this constitution, we revert to the position we were in before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 1550.]
That is a clear undertaking to maintain sanctions if the agreement proves unacceptable.
Only last week, in another place, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, in reply to one of my right hon. Friends who had asked whether the Government were quite firm that they intended to keep sanctions, said:

If a settlement is arrived at…the White Paper makes it clear that it will be necessary for the Rhodesian Government to introduce certain legislation. Only when we are satisfied that that has been done, shall we commend to the House the termination of sanctions or of other economic measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th January, 1972; Vol. 327, c. 157.]
One could not have a clearer pledge by the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues that the maintenance of sanctions, if the agreement is not accepted, remains part of Her Majesty's Government's policy. This is an indispensable tool for the Foreign Secretary in keeping the Smith regime up to its undertakings to him. Yet on Monday this week, when the Foreign Secretary was asked whether it was his policy to maintain sanctions, he refused to give that undertaking. He said:
As for the future, I shall not speculate far ahead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 947.]

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Healey: I shall give way as soon as I have finished with this point. What the House, the country and the world will expect from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon is an unequivocal pledge that, if the agreement proves unacceptable or if the test of acceptability for any reason is not carried through and the fifth principle is not maintained, then it is for Her Majesty's Government to maintain sanctions against Rhodesia and to stick to the policy which the right hon. Gentleman himself has stated in the past remains Her Majesty's Government's policy and an indispensable element in their bargaining power with the Smith régime on the test of acceptability.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Apart from the breaking of sanctions over a long period of time by many Powers, has not the situation been considerably altered by the decision of the United States to buy Rhodesian chrome? This means that the situation will not be the same.

Mr. Healey: In answer to that question I can only say that Mr. Smith as recently as last Friday, which was two months after the United States Senate voted to rescind the ban on the buying of chrome, stated that the possibility of the removal of sanctions was the reason he was prepared to make concessions. Therefore, unless the Government are


prepared to maintain sanctions if Mr. Smith does not keep to his side of the bargain, they are throwing away their bargaining power and abdicating their responsibility to this House and to the Rhodesians.

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose—

Mr. Healey: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, this is a short debate. No doubt he will have an opportunity to make his comments later in the debate. I do not want to speak for too long and would like as many hon. Members as possible to be able to speak.
We are asking the Foreign Secretary this afternoon to insist on immediate and satisfactory replies to questions, the answers to which the Foreign Secretary or other Ministers have already promised to the House. If necessary, we want him to send a senior Cabinet Minister to Rhodesia to get satisfactory answers.
Among many questions, I believe that the four key questions—all of which the Foreign Secretary has previously promised to pursue—are as follows. First, what are the grounds for the imprisonment of Mr. Todd and Miss Todd, of Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano and of other African leaders? If they have been imprisoned, as Lord Pearce has suggested, simply in order to silence them, will he insist on their immediate release? [An HON, MEMBER: "HOW can he insist?"] I will explain how he can insist. He can threaten to break off the whole agreement unless Mr. Smith carries out his promises to the Foreign Secretary.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is very important for the rest of the debate. Is the right hon. Gentleman asking me to withdraw the provisional settlement and, with it, the Commission?

Mr. Healey: I am asking the Foreign Secretary four questions—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has asked you one."] I am answering if hon. Members will listen. They may not like what I am going to say, but they will hear it. I am asking the Foreign Secretary four questions and am saying that, if he does not get satisfactory answers to those questions, it is clear that normal political activities are not being permitted and it is his plain duty to this House and to the Commission

to withdraw the Commission and to declare that the proposals are at an end. I could not say clearer than that.
The second question is: will he ensure that the African National Council gets permission to hold meetings in the tribal trust lands and elsewhere? The noble Lady, the Minister of State at the Scottish Office, in another place in a debate last Wednesday said that the Government were seeking an answer to this question, but we have not yet heard one.
The third question is: will he ensure—and in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in an intervention on Monday the Foreign Secretary promised to ask Mr. Smith this question—that there is freedom for the opponents of a settlement to use television and radio, as Mr. Smith himself has done?
Finally, will he ensure that there is freedom for public figures in the United Kingdom, who have a legitimate interest in the test of acceptability, to enter Rhodesia in order to observe it? This applies not only to members of this House, but to persons like Sir Dingle Foot, an ex-Attorney-General, and members of Labour Party National Executive delegations, who are not members of this House, just as much as it applies to members of this House. Unless the Foreign Secretary gets satisfactory answers on these questions, he is betraying his assurance to the House and is committing collusion with a rebel.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: rose—

Mr. Healey: I will give way later. If we look back at the Foreign Secretary's behaviour on this matter in the last three months we can see a miserable decline in his sense of responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He was telling us as late as last September that he would not go to negotiate a settlement unless preliminary contacts had satisfied him that there would be a settlement which met the letter and the spirit of the five principles, but with an agreement which he could honestly recommend only on the grounds that it was better than nothing and the best he could get. Nobody argued this point more eloquently than the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who was one of the Foreign Secretary's colleagues in this


matter. But now, finally, when Mr. Smith apparently defaults on his side of the agreement, the Foreign Secretary still proposes to make concessions to the rebel régime which were strictly contingent on Mr. Smith carrying out his side of the bargain.
Most of us on this side of the House, certainly I myself, like and respect the Foreign Secretary as a man—I find him one of the most agreeable occupants of the Conservative Front Bench. But we cannot admire his performance in the last few months on the Rhodesian question. He began as a champion of the African majority in a British colony. He is finishing up as a doormat to a dictator.

Mr. Tapsell: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I am as concerned as he that this country should honourably discharge its obligations to the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia so far as it is in our power to do so. But does he not think that, in the present situation in Central Africa, the best ways we can do that is, first, by allowing the Pearce Commission, if it so chooses, to continue its work and report back to this House on the test of acceptability? Secondly, that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends should respond favourably to the Foreign Secretary's suggestion that both sides should join in sending an all-party delegation from this House to Rhodesia?

Mr. Healey: I made it very clear on Monday that I very much hoped the Pearce Commission will be able to continue its work, but Lord Pearce himself made it clear that he could only honestly continue his work if he came to the view that the conditions he was promised for carrying out his work exist. Lord Pearce has pointed out in a statement on 21st January certain respects in which he fears that these conditions are not being met. I have gone over these points with the Foreign Secretary in this debate, and I am asking him to ensure they are met.
If the future of the Africans in Rhodesia depended on the Foreign Secretary and Her Majesty's Government at present, it would be dismal, but that is not the end of the matter. I think that we are all becoming conscious that the historic irony of the present situation is that an agreement intended to put

Rhodesia to sleep in fact has woken a sleeping giant. As a result of the Foreign Secretary's proposals, for the first time in the history of that unhappy country the African population, who outnumber the whites by 20 to 1, are being allowed a say in their own future, and they are responding to the opportunity in a manner which can only command the admiration of those who know anything of their history, not only in the towns but also in the villages and in the most remote rural areas. The answer that they are giving so far is, overwhelmingly, "No".

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Healey: Because I have been following very carefully the reports of meetings which have been held and statements which have been made—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: rose—

Mr. Healey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman gives a very good imitation of a jack in the box, but his interventions add very little light to our proceedings—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Healey: No, I shall not give way. What is equally striking, quite apart from the answers that the Africans are giving to the Pearce Commission, is the questions that they are asking. They are questions which are extremely penetrating, and they are being put with typical African pith and wisdom. Alas, through no fault of theirs, the commissioners have found themselves totally incapable of answering them. Among other questions, the Africans are asking, "Why are not we allowed a referendum?"

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: rose—

Mr. Healey: No, I shall not give way. "Why cannot we have majority rule now like all the other African territories round us?" "When shall we get majority rule if these proposals go through?" "What is the use of giving us more education if, when we have got the education, we cannot get the jobs either because of discrimination against us or because the Smith régime keeps importing white immigrants to fill every vacancy that arises?" "Why is the Land Tenure Act remaining?"
No one can claim that these questions are by far the most important which could be asked. They show a deep understanding of the proposals and a deep insight into their own situation. It is a tragedy of the Government that the Commissioners are unable to give any answers to any of these questions.
The Foreign Secretary has tried to persuade us that the choice in the test of acceptability is between a slide to apartheid and a real chance of democracy and majority rule. I believe that the Africans have clearly come to the same conclusion as we on this side of the House, namely, that the real question which they are being asked is, "Do you want the British people and the United Nations to abdicate the responsibility that they have so far accepted for human and political rights of the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia in return for insignificant changes in a racialist constitution which a racialist régime has the power to cancel at any moment, as it is at this very moment cancelling its undertaking to allow normal political activity?"
What the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith have done, though I am sure that it was not their intention, is to put the problem of Rhodesia back on the agenda of the peoples of the world with a very high priority. The movement for African dignity and freedom which we have seen gathering strength in Rhodesia in the last few weeks is not confined to Rhodesia alone. Further south, we have seen the strike of the Ovambo people in Namibia, and we have seen the gallant struggles of Chief Buthulezi to establish the rights of the Zulu people in South Africa. The struggle to liquidate the remnants of racialism in southern Africa is now entering a new phase, and, in the course of this test of acceptability, the British people, no less than the Rhodesian people, are being asked to decide which side they are on. I believe that the British people and this House must decide for dignity and freedom and that to take that decision is not to betray the Europeans in southern Africa. It is the only way to save them.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alport in a recent article—[Interruption.] I notice that right hon. and hon. Members oppo-

site sneer at his name, but there is no question that he knows more about Rhodesia than any other Member of this or the other House. He is an ex-Conservative Commonwealth Minister and an ex-High Commissioner in Rhodesia itself. He said:
When Mr. Smith, and those who surround and support him, triumph over the statesmanship and will-power of the British Government and the British Foreign Secretary, I frankly fear the worst not so much for Britain, as for the future of all races in Southern Africa.
I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear those words in mind, because I fear for the future of the Europeans as a result of this settlement. I believe that Lord Alport was speaking for many who study the situation in southern Africa most closely.
I appeal to the Foreign Secretary today to accept the evidence which is being collected by his commissioners in Rhodesia, to recognise the power and sincerity of the Africans' aspirations for freedom and equality, and to range himself and the country with these historic forces.
The right hon. Gentleman can start today by fulfilling his own promises to Parliament by ensuring that the Smith régime fulfils its promises to him.

4.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): From the start, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has taken the strongest objection to the provisional settlement which I was able to make with the Smith régime. Of course, I do not object to that. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to his opinion. I think that he, too, wishes the Pearce Commission to stay in Rhodesia and do its job. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to accept his opinion on what the Africans are thinking in Africa today. I cannot accept his opinion. But I will accept the opinion of Lord Pearce and his Commission when they report.
The right hon. Gentleman is apt always to spoil his case. He did so again today. He misquoted Lord Pearce. Lord Pearce did not charge the Smith regime with not allowing normal political activity. The right hon. Gentleman misconstrued Lord Pearce, who said very carefully that the facts were in dispute


and that he himself suspended judgment—

Mr. Healey: That is precisely what I said.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything of the sort. He implied—indeed, he said—that normal political activity was not being conducted and that the Commission could not continue its work in that case. But Lord Pearce did not say that. Lord Pearce said that the facts were in dispute and that he was suspending judgment.

Mr. Healey: I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair. On Monday, I quoted Lord Pearce's statement verbatim, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that my quotation was accurate. I made it clear that, with regard to political activities in the tribal trust areas, Lord Pearce suspended judgment until he knew all the facts. I asked the Foreign Secretary to ensure that Lord Pearce was able to discover the facts and to report them to this House.
However, the right hon. Gentleman has not commented on the other statement which I made on Monday and repeated today, that, if people are detained simply to silence them, then, even in existing conditions, that is not allowing normal political activity. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on that?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Both on Monday and today the right hon. Gentleman misquoted Lord Pearce. The noble Lord is not prepared to come to a judgment whether the normal political activities are sufficient for him to continue his job as yet. He has suspended judgment. The right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago—it is within the recollection of the House—suggested quite the contrary.
When the right hon. Gentleman again asks the rhetorical question, "Why not N.I.B.M.A.R. now?", he cannot carry any conviction. N.I.B.M.A.R. was the policy of the Labour Party before "Tiger". At "Tiger" it was dropped. It then became the policy of the Labour Party after "Tiger". At "Fearless" it was dropped. So again the right hon.

Gentleman lacks conviction when he asks that kind of rhetorical question.
I want to deal with these matters in a rather different tone from that which the right hon. Gentleman spoke this afternoon. I welcome the debate as a chance—I think that we should take it quietly and soberly—to define the Government's attitude on a matter which is of supreme concern to all the people of Rhodesia. We should remember that we are dealing with their lives, their country, their future, and the choice, which is of supreme importance, whether there is to be a racial or a non-racial society in Rhodesia. This is a sobering matter which we should be able to discuss without the kind of passion and distortion sometimes introduced into these debates. I will try to do that.
Rhodesia is a country where a white European minority rules the African majority. For the present, all the power lies with the Europeans. If their present constitution—the 1969 constitution—is continued, nothing in the future, as far as anybody can foresee, will change that situation except for the worse. The Europeans are in physical command. Some refuse to face that conclusion. But that the Europeans have the power and the ability to use it to keep themselves in power in Rhodesia is a fact of life.
Sanctions have been used to try to force a change and break that grip. They were to succeed, first, in weeks, then in months, and then in years. They have curbed investment in Rhodesia. As a result, there is extensive African unemployment, as I saw for myself lately. They have limited Rhodesia's ability to earn foreign exchange, but, as anyone can see the moment he visits Salisbury, they have not even scratched the surface of the standard of living of the European or his control of Rhodesian society. That, again, is a fact of life.
During the last five years, which coincided with the Government of which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was a distinguished Member—I am not blaming the Socialist Government for this—there is no doubt, as any hon. Member must agree, that, year after year, the situation of the Africans in Rhodesia has deteriorated and got worse.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot contest that fact. But most


of them have declared themselves totally against the terms of the provisional settlement agreed with Mr. Smith. They cannot, on principle, object to negotiating with him. Twice they did it, twice they very nearly succeeded in coming to an agreement with Mr. Smith, and twice, in the end, they failed. They cannot blame us for trying to achieve a result which they themselves tried so hard to win.
Since they were prepared to negotiate, it must not be the act of negotiation to which they object. That cannot be so. But this afternoon I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to face the question arising from the terms: What is it that they are asking the Rhodesians, and particularly the Rhodesian Africans, to reject?
At present, under the 1969 Constitution, there is no effective blocking mechanism whatever to prevent the parliamentary situation of the Africans from deteriorating. In the terms of the proposals which were negotiated an effective mechanism is introduced involving—[Interruption]—I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to listen to this, because it is very important that we should judge these matters right. In the terms of the proposals an effective mechanism is introduced involving not only a two-thirds majority in the Assembly, but a separate vote of each race in the Assembly. Is the ability to prevent amendment of the entrenched clauses and thus to block discriminatory legislation something which the Africans should be asked to reject?
At present, again, the representation in Parliament for the African rests on a complicated income tax formula applied in accordance with the relationship between the aggregate earnings of the European and African communities. That is an iniquitous system. It can be varied at will. Any Finance Minister in any year can put paid effectively to African representation in Parliament.
For that, the settlement substitutes a system whereby representation in Parliament depends on the number of voters who qualify on the same income tax, education and property qualifications as the Europeans.
Are the Africans in Rhodesia to be asked by the Opposition to spurn that

in favour of staying with the present arrangements?—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will follow me.
Now the Africans in Rhodesia have no hope of returning to a common voting roll. Now they have no declaration of rights enforceable in the courts. There is an absolute bar to any progression beyond parity to majority rule. The settlement, which the right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to dislike, removes all these disabilities which are now placed upon the Rhodesian Africans.
When I was in Salisbury, the two elements of a settlement on which every African insisted were: first, progress to a common roll because, without it, they said that there would be no harmonious society, and, secondly, rights which could be protected in the courts.
Under the terms of the settlement both these purposes are achieved. New discriminatory legislation, if ever it got through Parliament, could be disallowed by the courts, as could secondary legislation derived from previous legislation like the Land Tenure Act.
Are the Opposition really ready to advise the Africans to throw away all those gains? That is what they would be doing. I know that they will argue that Mr. Smith will not carry out his side of the bargain. But they were prepared to negotiate with him. If they had been successful, as they very nearly were, they would have had to rely on Mr. Smith to carry out the bargain. They were prepared to accept a settlement—

Mr. Philip Whitehead: rose—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: —without the only possible cast-iron guarantee which one can get, which is the use of force to make sure that it is implemented.
In this context of trust and mistrust, I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to consider the political situation as it will be in Rhodesia if these proposals are accepted. Mr. Smith will have to pass through his Parliament all the legislation with his and his party's authority behind it. He has to engage his political reputation on these changes, and the changes are big. What is more, he will have to do so before this House is asked


to pass any consequential legislation at all.

Mr. Whitehead: Since Mr. Smith does not seem to be honouring the bargain regarding normal political activities, why should we trust him regarding the rest of the package?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will come to that. I am deploring the opinion which has been expressed and asking right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to think seriously about what they are asking the Africans to reject. It is a fair question.
Indeed, if the settlement were to go through—I am prepared to leave it to the African and not pre-judge his opinion—at least we should have created some hope for the future where at present, I underline this, there is none at all.
If the African population vote "No" to the settlement, they will not be saying that they prefer the 1969 constitution. That is a dialectical distortion.

Mr. Healey: By Mr. Smith.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes makes dialectical distortions.
Let us face it. Although that is so, they will be left with the 1969 constitution. They will be saddled with it for as far as anybody can see into the future, by their own hand, if that is their decision. There will be nothing else, and the next instalment of repression of freedom—because the right wing will have won a victory if the settlement is rejected—will be harsher than that of today.
When the right hon. Gentleman makes the kind of speech that he has made ever since this provisional settlement was proposed he really is, in effect, saying that there is no solution except fighting it out. That is a terrible thing to say, because, in the end, it will mean bloodshed, and more bloodshed, in Africa, and we have a chance to prevent it. No one has presented an alternative, except fighting it out. We shall be onlookers, 6,000 miles away. It will be the Africans who will bear the brunt of it, and for any foreseeable future they cannot win. The Opposition, at present, anyhow, are not offering them anything better than this kind of martyrdom. At least from this side of the House we have provided a plan which

could give them a better political, social and economic future than anything they could otherwise enjoy.
I now turn to answer, as far as I can, some of the right hon. Gentleman's questions today, and some which took up much of the time on Monday at Question Time.
The main question raised by the Opposition—and I do not think we can blink the fact—is really whether Her Majesty's Government should intervene with Mr. Smith, over the head of the Commission, and insist on certain conditions for the continuance of the test of acceptability. I think that that is a fair way to put the problem which we face on both sides of the House.
I can give the answer. The Government feel that the Commission should carry on so long as, in its view, political conditions are such that it can perform the task with which it is charged. It might be that the political conditions will change and the Commission will find it impossible to stay. I do not know whether that will happen, but for the moment that is not the Commission's position.
As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition said that he wants to get an honest answer, and he added that the Commission wanted to get it, too. So do we. Therefore, I want to leave the Commission in the field so long as it considers that there are political conditions in which it can operate. I hope, therefore, it is agreed that the Commission should carry on.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that it is the judgment of the Government that the conditions which prevail in Rhodesia while the test of acceptability is being carried out is a matter of no concern to him? If that is so, why did the right hon. Gentleman send Mr. Philip Mansfield to Rhodesia, and what is he doing there? Is he not bringing back to the Government some indication of whether conditions are normal?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Of course we are concerned about the political conditions, but I think I should repeat the question at issue, because it is pertinent. The question is whether we should intervene over the head of the Commission. There may be circumstances in which I


should feel it inevitable to do so, but I do not think that those circumstances have arisen, because, quite clearly, the Commission feels that it can carry on at present in the context of the present political activity in Rhodesia.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has put his question very fairly. What we are asking is that he shall intervene in support of the Commission, because there are five or six issues on which the Commission itself has sought assurances from Mr. Smith and not received them. From what the right hon. Gentleman said, it seems that he would regard it as a tragedy if the Commission had to withdraw because normal political activities were not being permitted. What we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to do is to intervene in support of the Commission and get satisfactory answers from Mr. Smith to the very questions which, on the instructions of this House, and perhaps as a result of the Commission's own discussions, Lord Pearce has put to Mr. Smith and not had answers to.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If Lord Pearce wishes me to intervene, I have no doubt that he will say so, but I can just imagine what the right hon. Gentleman would say if I were to try to intervene and interfere with the workings of the commission. I can just imagine the speech that he would make.
Let me repeat this to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am trying to deal with this matter as carefully as I can. In the context of political activity, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly exhorting me to act to compel Mr. Smith to do this or that, for example, in relation to internment. I accept that I have an obligation to press Mr. Smith to create conditions in which there can be the maximum political freedom of expression and in which, for example, persons such as Mr. Todd and Mr. Chinamano can express their views in public. I have the right to press him to do so, and I have done. But what effective sanction did the right hon. Gentleman have, not in a matter like this, but in a matter of life or death? None. When the hangings took place in Rhodesia—literally a matter of life or death—the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had no sanction whatever.
I shall use all the influence that I have, but what is the ultimate sanction that I have? It is to withdraw the settlement and therefore to withdraw the Commission. That is what the Leader of the Opposition asked me to do on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to do something different. They had better co-ordinate their positions.
I doubt whether the Opposition really want the settlement withdrawn. At any rate, I am not willing to do that, for two reasons. The first I have given. It is that the terms of the settlement for the Africans are as good as could be obtained in any circumstances. The second is that I am not prepared to deprive Mr. Todd, or Mr. Chinamano, or the 5 million Africans in Rhodesia of the option of constitutional reform, which in my view is the sole alternative to despair. I propose to keep the provisional settlement in being and to leave the Commission there unless it says that it wants to come home. If it says so, that will be the Commission's decision.
If Lord Pearce and his Commission are to come home, it must be because he has decided that a combination of restrictions on freedom and of violence and intimidation has made it impossible for him to bring in a true verdict on the opinion of the Rhodesians on the settlement. He has not reached that decision. It must be left to him and his very experienced colleagues.
I have already dealt with the fact that the statement by Lord Pearce has been misconstrued. There is really a danger in misconstruing his statement. He said:
To say that there has been no political activity in any of the Tribal Trust Lands would seem untenable…
but there is a danger, because constantly it is said that normal political activity must rule, and almost equally constantly from the other side of the House the rest of the sentence is not added, which is that it must be in conditions which lead to security and to the proper working of democracy in Rhodesia.
The right hon. Gentleman confidently quotes one part of the sentence, but omits the proviso that politcial activities must be conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. So far Lord Pearce has decided that the political conditions allow him to carry on. In other words,


he is leaving the situation open and under review, and in my opinion that is right.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Six days ago the right hon. Gentleman sent Mr. Mansfield to Rhodesia. The Foreign Secretary is on record as having said that he had made representations about the detention of Mr. Todd. When questioned about this, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not feel able to make a public statement until he had been supplied with the reasons why Mr. Todd had been detained. Are we to know those reasons? Has Mr. Smith told the right hon. Gentleman why Mr. Todd was detained? Are we to know whther Mr. Smith is mute of malice or by visitation of God?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Mansfield is returning tomorrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Mr. Smith has told me that he has detained Mr. Todd for reasons of security, but the evidence on which Mr. Smith made the decision is not available to me at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] The Leader of the Liberal Party asked me if I was in a position to answer his question—[Interruption.]—and what I have said is a matter of fact.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East and others questioned me about visits by hon. Members of this House to Rhodesia, and I promised to give further information as soon as I could. Hon. Members will have noticed that a number have gone there lately without any fuss or hindrance. The Government naturally have no objection whatever to hon. Members going to Rhodesia, and we will certainly ask our liaison officer there, although he is a busy man, to offer any facilities to hon. Members when they are there.
I do not disguise my view that it would be wrong for political parties in this House to go to Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I wish hon. Gentlemen opposite would for once wait to hear the end of a sentence before interrupting. In my view it would be wrong for us as political parties to go to Rhodesia and take the opportunity publicly in Rhodesia to support or object to the settlement. [Interruption.]
No one ever contemplated, when the fifth principle was laid down, that we

should transfer our political squabbles on to Rhodesian territory—[Interruption]—and the security situation in Rhodesia confirms me in my judgment that to have done so would have been totally wrong. However, for hon. Members to go there and observe is an entirely different matter, and I shall, within a day or so, be approaching the leaders of the parties with suggestions on these issues.
In one country after another in Africa the Western pattern of democracy has been superseded by military rule or by one-party States. Here is an attempt to introduce, gradually it is true, but surely, a common roll and a parliamentary system which will make it possible for all races to co-exist and co-operate in the political affairs of their society.
It surely cannot be an affront—I believe that this is at the back of a lot of the thinking of hon. Gentlemen opposite—to modern Africa to try to recover for Africans rights in Rhodesia which they have lost.
I ask this House and all hon. Members to re-read the terms of the provisional settlement and each to ask himself in conscience whether he is justified in advising the Rhodesians, and particularly the African Rhodesians, to turn away this opportunity to start down a new road. [Interruption.] I have searched my conscience and I cannot bring myself to believe that I would be right to withdraw the provisional settlement, which gives such an opportunity. [Interruption.] I have no doubt whatever about this.
I pray that extremists will not blind or divert the Rhodesians from a true appreciation of where their interests and the interests of their country lie.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: The Foreign Secretary is right to invite the House to accept two of his propositions, first that this is a very serious situation and second that we should examine what he is doing and putting to the House.
That means that hon. Members who, like myself, have always opposed the kind of settlement that the right hon. Gentleman has put before us, and have deeply deplored the fact that Lord Goodman should have had anything to do


with this manoeuvre, must this afternoon start with the Foreign Secretary's remarks at the point at which he started, which is with the present situation.
The right hon. Gentleman completely failed to reply to the cardinal point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party, about the Foreign Secretary's responsibility in all this. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately confused the responsibilities of the Commission and those of himself.
A deal is not being proposed between Lord Pearce and his Commission on the one hand and Mr. Smith on the other. In my view, the partners are Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Smith, and the responsibility for everything that has so far been agreed by Mr. Smith does not rest on the shoulders of the Commission but on those of the right hon. Gentleman, and this afternoon he once again tried to escape that responsibility.
It is a shameful reply to offer to us, as he offered to the Leader of the Liberal Party, that he is satisfied with the reply he has received from Mr. Smith; that Mr. Smith alleges that he has arrested Mr. Todd, the former Prime Minister, not because he wants to silence him but on security grounds and that he, Mr. Smith, is not prepared to tell the Foreign Secretary what evidence he has for that allegation. The reasons why Her Majesty's Government are approaching the point when they must call off this settlement are reasons which hon. Gentlemen opposite must judge for themselves.
It is not as though the Foreign Secretary fully represented the views that Lord Pearce has expressed. For example, Lord Pearce said on television last night—I believe the film in which he said it was made on Sunday—that he was calling back all his advisers for a weekend conference at headquarters and that only then, after consulting them, would he say whether he was prepared to make a first assessment about whether normal political activities were being permitted.
The Foreign Secretary was less than fair when he largely repudiated what my right hon. Friend had said because Lord Pearce said, among other things, that he would regard it as very disturbing—there is beginning to be some evidence of

this—if difficulty arose in the implementation of the pledge of normal political activities being permitted. He said that he would not go further than that. Nevertheless, he went that far, and anybody who watched the film and heard Lord Pearce must have concluded that there are already doubts in his mind.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I said that Lord Pearce had deliberately left the matter open.

Mr. Mendelson: But the right hon. Gentleman did not say that there was already a clear expression of doubt in Lord Pearce's mind. The right hon. Gentleman made it appear as though my right hon. Friend had completely misrepresented the position. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite who support the racist régime in Rhodesia do not like to hear the truth about these matters. They want sanctions called off and the Commission to report, whether or not it is true, that the settlement should be implemented, but they do not count in this debate.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: I will not give way. The Foreign Secretary is clearly avoiding his responsibility in this matter, particularly in view of his comments about Mr: Todd.
We have had the moving experience of large numbers of African citizens making their opinions clear. Nobody with knowledge of Rhodesia and with contacts among the Africans there cannot but have been deeply moved by the way in which, after many years of political repression during which it has been made difficult for them to inform themselves politically, they have shown how well informed they are when they have made contact with the Commission.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the cardinal question they have asked—a question which the Commission cannot answer but on which we must give our opinions—is, "How do we know that the money which is allegedly to be supplied for educational purposes by Mr. Smith will be supplied for those purposes?" That question is bound to be taken into account when they give their opinions to the Commission.
It is clear, therefore, that we must receive certain assurances. One must


be about the Chairman of the African National Council, who I understand is also threatened with arrest. He has previously been placed under restriction. Another must be about Mr. Todd. We must not only be told what will happen to him but be assured that the right hon. Gentleman will call the deal off if any further inroads are made into the opportunities for normal political activities. He is quite wrong to say rhetorically that he wishes to preserve the right of Mr. Garfield Todd and the right of the treasurer of the African National Council, though he be in prison, to take all the advantages of the agreement when the fifth test is being broken every day.
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary misrepresented the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend said that he does not wish the Commission to be recalled at this moment. I agree with him. Nothing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said from the Front Bench contradicts that in any way. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted a serious debate, it was unworthy of him to play at politics and waste so much time on an alleged disagreement between two of my right hon. Friends. We have said that the Commission ought to continue its work but that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary must see to it that normal political activities are allowed. The evidence is now overwhelming that people are being arrested and are not being put on trial. The evidence for the arrests and allegations is not being made public, or even being privately communicated to the British Government. The time is fast approaching when the settlement must be called off because Mr. Smith is not living up to his engagement.
The matter goes further than that. From the threatening speech made by Mr. Smith last Friday, it has clearly emerged that he had a completely different idea about the proceedings that were to take place than what the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said in the previous debate. It has become evident that Mr. Smith thought, "We are going to run these through, with white employers calling in their black employees"—which has already happened in some cases—"and telling them in the privacy of the general

manager's office, 'look here, you say' yes 'to this, do you not?' "Mr. Smith thought that the employer would then report to the Pearce Commission saying that most of his employees were in favour of the settlement. One of those white employers appeared on television last night. He was bitterly disappointed. He appeared to be astonished at the human spirit and courage of some Africans. This has surprised them. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are deeply disappointed, because they shared Mr. Smith's expectation. I do not say all hon. Gentlemen opposite, but some are disappointed. What is now happening is clearly something that Mr. Smith did not bargain for but it is of the very essence of the contract that the British Government asked this House to enter into. Those are the things on which the debate must concentrate.
On the subject of police violence, anyone who has been to Rhodesia will know that as soon as Africans assemble, the police are too ready to bring out the dogs and the guns. I remember being in Salisbury about six weeks before Mr. Joshua Nkomo was first interned. He has never been allowed free since then to meet his associates and engage in normal political activities.
On that occasion, when there was already a ban on him holding public political meetings, it was announced one Sunday morning that he would be visiting Harari to see a friend whose daughter was celebrating her 21st birthday. Within about two hours, according to the police 60,000 African supporters of Mr. Nkomo assembled in the streets. According to the Africans I knew, it was only 20,000. But within another half an hour the police dogs were on the streets and Mr. Nkomo was forcibly prevented from even shaking hands with some of his supporters. That is the sort of background to remember when we hear that a group of Africans assembled somewhere. This would encourage any group to say "No". If our constituents were living in such conditions, they would find it advisable to gather in groups and not to go alone to the protected polling booths, which they have achieved for themselves over many years. There was a time in Britain, as Dickens well describes, when the British electors preferred to go in groups rather


than alone. Under police state conditions—I am using the Prime Minister's words—in Rhodesia today nobody has to be surprised nor should they hold anything against people who prefer to go in groups. There was no violence near Salisbury until the police started attacking them, and that started very soon.
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary is a guarantor for the honour of Britain and this House in the fulfilment of a settlement. He has a responsibility to both the people of Rhodesia and the people of Britain. It is no good him saying that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition might have entered into agreement. My right hon. Friend did not. Why not? If the right hon. Gentleman would question, for instance, my right hon. Friend who was then the Attorney-General and a member of the delegation which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took out with him to this conference he would see why the negotiations broke down. They broke down precisely because the kind of guarantees on the fifth principle demanded by my right hon. Friend could not be pledged after Mr. Smith had returned to Salisbury having entered into this agreement in the first place. Mr. Smith was told by his party and the right wing, "You cannot allow this to happen because we might get the wrong result if we agreed to it."
Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has a duty to be as sober and serious in this debate as he asks us to be, and not to introduce this rhetorical political question to confuse the issue. He has a serious responsibility. If he finds that Mr. Smith is not living up to his part of the bargain, the right hon. Gentleman must honour his agreement with the House and call off the settlement, anti tell the world the truth.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: My concern in this matter is no less passionate than that so recently displayed by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) but I shall express myself a little more quietly, but with no less conviction.
I maintain very strongly that it is right and proper that the Rhodesians of all ethnic backgrounds should have this opportunity to express in full and in the maximum possible freedom their feelings

on the proposals for a settlement as negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others that the fact that Africans are taking part in discussions is itself a major step forward and contrasts very strongly with the six years during which the Labour Government were in control, during those and years of U.D.I. when African expressions of opinion were seldom heard either inside or outside Rhodesia.
I refer those who think that the debate on Rhodesia is one-sided, and those who think that the views put forward are only against these proposals, to a selection of the various documents which are at present circulating around Rhodesia giving different views and opinions on the merits and demerits of the settlement. One should look behind the rioting and the Press headlines, conscious as one is of the vast distances in the continent of Africa, to the serious consideration of the alternatives, which is taking place in Rhodesia today and is taking place only as a result of the initiative of my right hon. Friend—although it is undeniable that many of the documents being circulated press the Africans to refuse the terms of the settlement as proposed.
Equally, many have not quite made up their minds. Many say that the settlement is a bad one. But I think that the House would be impressed by the views of Father R. H. Randolph, published in The Shield, which is the journal of the Roman Catholic Church in Rhodesia and reported in the Rhodesian Herald. Father Randolph is communications secretary for the Rhodesian Catholic Bishops' Conference.
The success of the proposals, even as they stand, will depend on the sincerity and goodwill of all people in observing the spirit of the proposals and upon the necessary change of heart of those who see them as a change in ideology.
I shall refer again to that observation shortly. Father Randolph continued:
But if the proposals were accepted they would check the tendency for Rhodesia to go towards a South African apartheid system. Majority rule for civilised Africans is now in sight.
It is up to the Pearce Commission to decide whether it can carry on with its task of gathering the opinion of the


whole population of Rhodesia. But whatever the Commission's findings are, British public opinion will want to be assured that those findings were arrived at in the best possible manner. To put it no higher, many consider that the reason given for the detention of the Todds and Mr. Chinamano is less than adequate.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has reminded us of the paragraph in the White Paper which calls for normal political activities
provided that they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner".
Mr. Smith is quoted as showing his understanding of this paragraph. In an interview on 7th December he said this:
As you know, part of the agreement is that we shall allow as much freedom of discussion as possible and we will release as many detainees as possible. We would honestly hope to do this to try to stimulate fair and constructive discussion.
Many of us would question whether the sentiments there expressed are consistent with the rather bald statement by the Rhodesian Minister of Justice recently on the arrest of the Todds and Mr. Chinamano. The Minister of Justice said:
The making of this order"—
that is, the order to arrest them—
is based on the belief that you are likely to commit or incite the commission of acts in Rhodesia which would endanger the public safety or disturb or interfere with the maintenance of public order.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has no writ, in the final analysis, to demand that the Department of Justice of the illegal régime provides all its secret documents. However, many people in Britain are extremely disappointed that Mr. Todd was not able to keep his engagement to speak in Britain this week and we would like my right hon. Friend to convey in the strongest possible terms our concern about this matter. The British public wants to see far greater evidence of Mr. Smith's "sincerity and good will", to quote Father Randolph again, and we believe that for the sake of public opinion alone Mr. Smith should be prepared to make a statement explaining in detail why these people have been detained.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman believe in Smith's sincerity?

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Certainly, I speak for many people on both sides of the House, for many of my constituents, and for members of the British public elsewhere, when I say that we need reassurances as to Mr. Smith's intentions, his sincerity and his good will before we can take any action in this House to legalise his position.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I begin on at least one note of agreement with the Foreign Secretary. He knows that I and my party, like the members of the Labour Party, voted against the settlement proposals. We do not like the proposals. We do not believe that they are in the best interests of the African majority.
However, I recognise that there is another point of view, which was perhaps best put by Lord Goodman in another place—namely, that these were the best terms that could be obtained and that they should be accepted.
What is important is not what is the view of the different parties in the House, or what is the view of the House as a whole, or of the British people as a whole about the settlement, but whether the settlement proposals are acceptable to the African majority. I agree with that point of view. That was why, as soon as these proposals were made, it was the fifth principle—the test of acceptability—that became all-important and crucial.
Although it may be our private opinions or our party opinions that this is a bad settlement and it does not do justice to the African cause, if the Africans were to take a different view it is they who would face the consequences. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party said at a public meeting at Central Hall last night, it is easy for us in Britain to advise against acceptance of the settlement when we do not have to face the consequences. I start with the proposition that this is what the debate is about and that the test of acceptability and the proper carrying out of that test is of crucial importance to the whole deal.
On that point of agreement I remind the Foreign Secretary of what he said on the afternoon after the arrest of the Todds. There was a genuine sense of


shock in the House, shock which the right hon. Gentleman shared, because he said this to us:
On hearing the reports last night I immediately sent a personal message to Mr. Smith seeking to establish the facts behind these arrests.
The right hon. Gentleman said later that he was sending Mr. Mansfield out. He concluded in this way:
In a matter of such importance I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it would not be right for me to say more about these arrests until I have received further full information from Rhodesia. I will keep the House informed.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 465.]
The House has not yet been informed. The House is waiting to be informed. The comment by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) that the answer had been "less than adequate" was a masterpiece of understatement. The Foreign Secretary has had to return to the House and say, "In response to the assurance I gave you eight days ago, I have not been able to get an answer to my questions". That is totally unsatisfactory and cannot create confidence in the House or amongst the British public that the test of acceptability is being carried out properly.
Mr. Chinamano is one of those whom I had intended to see when I go to Rhodesia. A few days before he was arrested I learned that he had been suffering from a very serious cardiac illness and that he had been advised, mainly on medical grounds, that he should give up his post as Treasurer of the A.N.C. and should come to London to get away from the political pressures of Rhodesia and receive the specialist medical treatment he requires. Knowing this, I was not surprise to read in the Press that Mr. Chinamano had fainted on the way to the police station. I understand that he is in hospital in Salisbury. I should like the Government to find out what his condition is and, if there is any danger to him, I trust that it will be possible for him to come to London and to receive adequate medical treatment.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned visits by Members of Parliament. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, I have already written to the Government Chief Whip saying that in principle we are perfectly happy to contribute a Member to an all-party delegation but it is

a little late in the day. If the Government had been serious about an all-party delegation, it should have been proposed at the beginning. In the absence, still, of any firm dates or firm proposals for an all-party delegation, it is right that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party should press ahead with their plans for their own surveys of what is happening in Rhodesia. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and myself that clearance for our visit has been arranged.
One of the crucial differences of opinion across the Floor of the House is on the basic question whether Mr. Smith's intentions are honourable. This is not the time to go through all the differences which have since arisen on the interpretation of the settlement. To take but one example, the White Paper "Proposals for a Settlement" contains a proposal for a commission to review existing legislation with a view to ending racial discrimination. Page 15 of the White Paper says this:
The Rhodesian Government recognise that the findings of the Commission will carry special authority and have given an assurance that they will commend to Parliament such changes in existing legislation as are required to give effect to its recommendations, subject only to considerations that any Government would be obliged to regard as of an overriding character.
Many of us were suspicious of that phrase, and in the debate on 1st December the right hon. Gentleman was pressed to say what it meant. He said:
…the wording of the proposals clearly carries an obligation to act and to change the law in respect of those recommendations which are made in the context of improving and fostering racial harmony."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 468.]
That was his interpretation of those words in the settlement, but let us see what Mr. Smith said in his Parliament on precisely the same point. In his speech commending the settlement to the Rhodesian Parliament on 25th November, he said:
The evidence of this Commission will be made public and in the event of the Rhodesian Government accepting their recommendations they will commend such changes to Parliament.
In the phrase "in the event of the Rhodesian Government accepting their recommendations" the word "unlikely"


is almost understood. It is Mr. Smith's interpretation of the proposals that matters and not the right hon. Gentleman's because it is Mr. Smith who will be left in charge under the settlement.
The reason why we are so concerned about what has happened during the visit of the Pearce Commission is that we are being seriously asked to believe that Mr. Smith, once sanctions have been lifted, once the legality of his Government has been recognised through diplomatic channels right around the world, will be a changed man and will behave better than he does now under the pressure of sanctions, under the pressure of not being recognised by a single State.
That is why we are entitled to say that the present conditions during the visit of the Pearce Commission are not the normal conditions that have prevailed since U.D.I. I hold no brief for the conduct and handling of the Rhodesian situation by the previous Administration, but it is not right to compare the position of the then Prime Minister, faced with the hangings in Rhodesia, with the present position, because now we have tried to restore some degree of normal relations between the two Governments. An agreed settlement is being discussed undertakings have been given to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. An almost normal political situation is supposed to be created. It is in that new situation that the right hon. Gentleman must exercise his responsibility. I agree with the observation of a previous speaker that the right hon Gentleman has been inclined to shuffle off that responsibility on to Lord Pearce and the Commission. The undertakings about the test of acceptability were given—

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: That was not my contention. If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that that is so.

Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said "a previous speaker". It was the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) who was making the point, so the hon. Gentleman need not be quite so sharp.
The point I want to make is that the undertakings about the test of acceptability were given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, and on that basis

the House voted on 1st December on whether it accepted the proposals. I and my colleagues dissented. The House agreed, but on the conditions the right hon. Gentleman gave us. Therefore, we are entitled to demand that he, not Lord Pearce, satisfies himself that the conditions are being met.
The scenes we have witnessed in Rhodesia in the past few days make it clear that the majority of the population, who have for the past five or six years been suppressed and politically quiescent, have accepted the quiesence on the understanding that the world community was still interested in their fate. Sanctions were operating, and not a single country was recognising the legality of the Smith régime. But now the majority are being asked to change the situation and accept a set of proposals that leave them fairly and squarely in the hands of the Rhodesian Front, with the hopes that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary holds that progress will be made. That is their choice. They are being asked to take themselves off the agenda of world politics. That is why they are reacting in a very strong way.
I am sorry to say to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think he knows of the high personal regard in which I hold him, that in his speech this afternoon he gave the impression yet again of being a very weak man being pushed around by a ruthless one.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I do not want to delay the House for long, because many hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to draw attention to the extraordinary position in which the shadow Foreign Secretary finds himself. I do not know why he asked for this debate. Is he against the Pearce Commission? Does he wish it to be withdrawn?
In part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman seemed to lay down a number of conditions my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary should seek to have fulfilled. He wanted my right hon. Friend to insist on free use of radio, on the African National Congress having a full right of assembly, and that leading people should go out from here. But when, in the five or six years when the right hon. Gentleman's


Government were in office, under any circumstances could any of those ideas have been put forward with any hope of success?
If those conditions are not to be fulfilled, apparently, the Labour Opposition wishes the Pearce Commission to be brought home. I wish hon. Members opposite would read what Lord Goodman said. Lord Goodman said that it would be a matter of absolute folly to reject the terms, because the alternative is to go down the road to apartheid. That is clear beyond a peradventure of doubt.
Doubtless in Penistone the elections are run the right way and the people have the right to a proper and free expression of opinion. But when the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) talks about the conditions of Penistone applying to Africa he is talking about the change from what is a police State to a State in which there is some chance for African advance. That is the whole point of the settlement. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may point at me, but I, with Lord Goodman, was strong on matters like Biafra. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman felt about those Africans being massacred out there. There are people in the House who believe in advancing the rights of subject peoples and seeing that we get the best possible deal.
I believe, with Lord Goodman, that the proposed settlement is the best deal that can be obtained. I am amazed that Labour right hon. and hon. Members should say that it is the duty of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to lay down this or that condition for the operation of the Pearce Commission. We have the Pearce Commission there, and it can judge whether the conditions are being properly met. Labour hon. Members say, "We have seen the police dogs out". They say that we have seen this out and that out. I agree, but it is for Pearce and not my right hon. Friend or even the House, least of all hon. Members going by Press reports, to judge whether the conditions are being properly met. That is why I believe not only that the Pearce Commission should not be withdrawn but that the House has a duty to see that the tone of debate here is kept at a proper level, and that there is a chance of the Afri

cans having the proper question put to them.
The question is not, "Do you wish to be removed from the African stage?", and it is not, "Do you wish the United Nations no longer to be thinking about you?" The United Nations long ago ceased to think about them. With the purchase of chrome and all those other things, the whole sanctions policy is dead. The question that should be asked, as Lord Goodman clearly said in another place, is, "Are the proposals better than your present state?" That is proved by the speech of the hon. Gentleman, when he talked about police dogs and a police State.
The grapes of wrath we see on the other side of the House are of a bogus vintage, being merely the sour grapes resulting from six years of failure on the part of Labour right hon. and hon. Members.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I will not try to comment in full on the speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who recommended to us the speech of Lord Goodman in another place. From my reading of it it seemed to me to be a great speech. But the trouble with Lord Goodman's speech, and the trouble with Lord Goodman, is that when he went to Rhodesia to make his inquiries he was not instructed, and so far as I can make out made no attempt, to gauge likely African reactions to the settlement proposals he was negotiating. One of the most appalling mistakes made by the Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is that African opinion in Rhodesia has been caused to become highly suspicious of the whole exercise.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of the settlement—and at present I am not going into those—we cannot imagine a means of making the African population more suspicious of the whole exercise than for Lord Goodman to go to Rhodesia several times to negotiate with the régime to work out some kind of agreement and attempt to foist it on the Africans. Therefore, I take less seriously than the right hon. Gentleman remarks Lord Goodman may have made in another place.
I am not surprised that the Africans in Rhodesia are highly suspicious of the whole operation. They have had the experience of about six years of U.D.I. and they are faced with public statements by Ian Smith such as the following, which he is reported as having made in the Rhodesian Parliament:
It is our carefully considered assessment that in view of the expansion of the economy and the increase in immigration to which we can confidently look forward, no European need harbour any anxiety about the security of his future in Rhodesia.
I cannot think that any African can interpret those words in any other way than to assume that Mr. Smith hopes—in fact, is certain—that if the settlement proposals are agreed the level of investment in Rhodesia from outside the country and the rate of immigration of into Rhodesia will be at such a level as to frustrate completely any hope of African advancement. If such suspicions are abroad in Rhodesia, I am not surprised, and I am not surprised by the degree of opposition that we have noticed.
A point needs to be made during this debate about the course of events since Lord Pearce arrived. I was not the slightest bit surprised by the outbreak of violence. If, after six years in a police State, unable to express oneself, one finds people coming out from Britain, including a very learned and very old judge, who start asking what kind of political future one wants, if that is the first occasion for years and years anyone has even taken the trouble to ask what kind of régime one wishes to live in and what kind of political future one wants, it is bound to cause a considerable degree of excitement.
What is most impressive is that, after the initial wave of excitement, all the evidence, confirmed by Lord Pearce on "24 Hours" last night, is that the Africans have settled down to a firm and careful consideration of the proposals and are indulging so far as they are permitted—and that is not very far—in perfectly reasonable political activity in an attempt to assess the terms, for what they are worth.
It would be wrong for any of us to attempt to predict what the result of a settlement will be. But I shall not be surprised if they reject that settlement for

a reason which must be obvious to every hon. Member, and that is, in the words of Mr. Harold Macmillan 10 years ago:
The winds of change are blowing through Africa.
Although the African majority in Rhodesia has been gagged, I shall not be surprised to discover that the winds of change have been blowing through Rhodesia as well.
One surprising piece of evidence which appears from the Press reports about the work of the Commission is the degree to which Africans in the trust lands as well as in the towns and townships are politically conscious, politically aware and politically interested in their future. I should not be surprised if they make a choice which involves the sacrifice of the small benefits which might accrue from a settlement, because they understand that their only hope may be self-determination for them and their children. If they make that choice, I hope that the people of Britain and throughout the world will have the courage to stand by it and do everything they can to ensure that the Africans get the thing they have asked for.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The speeches of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) exemplified that attitude of total and almost splenetic hostility to the white man in Africa which has been one of the most significant elements of Socialist policy in the last 20 years and has done untold harm in many parts of Africa. It goes so far that, if there emerges, as, for example, in Malawi or Uganda, a ntive African leader who is not anti-European, he becomes one of their bogymen just as much as Mr. Smith or anyone else.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East showed the Jekyll and Hyde attitude of the Opposition to the Rhodesian question. Ministers of the Labour Government sought to get a settlement on terms which went miles beyond the 1961 constitution, because they thought that it was harmful on all sides and in every way for this dispute to continue. Now those Ministers are back in Opposition they become and begin to speak as the leaders of a party in which the left has filled a dominant rôle and is concerned with every country but its own.
That produces the unrealistic nature of this debate. It was highlighted by a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East when referring to the present activity in Rhodesia. He said:
for the first time in that unhappy country
the Africans are begining to play a part. That shows just how little he and other hon. Gentlemen know about Rhodesia and its development.
The British ruled a quarter of the world, and ruled it very well, but as an imperial race. When we left we handed over power from an imperial race to an indigenous race. Nowhere ever did we create or form part of a multi-racial society, because to do so does not come natural to the Anglo-Saxons. In Rhodesia alone, which has never been ruled from London—which some people forget—British people began spontaneously to build a multi-racial society, the only one which has ever taken root in the British Commonwealth of Nations. They did it; we did not. By some quirk that odd example occurred. Before U.D.I. there were no rules of racial differentiation in Rhodesia. There was a limited electorate, but the qualification of property and education was the same for everyone—

Mr. John Mendelson: What!

Mr. Bell: It was the same for everyone. I do not think that hon. Members have done their homework on this subject.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Bell: I will not give way. if I am subjected to a good deal of interruption this will slow me up, and I have been asked to speak briefly. No doubt the hon. Gentleman may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
This is the society against which we have chosen to take this repressive action. I put the proposition that all the trouble in Rhodesia has come from outside because we had not the common sense to let Rhodesia go on with that unique and hopeful experiment. By some extraordinary error of judgment the Central African Federation was broken up. We gave independence to Nyasaland—the most backward of them all—which became Malawi. We gave independence to Northern Rhodesia, which was quite backward. We refused indpendence to Southern Rhodesia which had enjoyed

home rule since 1923 and had never been ruled from London.
There is no point in going back to that moment of folly. This was done, and all the trouble has stemmed from that initial error of judgment. Let us not talk about Mr. Smith and the Rhodesian Front. We refused independence to Rhodesia, on the terms of the 1961 constitution, to Mr. Garfield Todd, and to his successor, Mr. Winston Field. There is nothing unique in the position of Mr. Smith.
Many territories in Africa were British and we gave them independence. We devised constitutions for them on the Westminster model at Marlborough House or Lancaster House. With the exception of two enclaves in South Africa, they all went back and tore up those constitutions. I had a small hand in devising one of them on behalf of the Barotse tribe. That constitution was solemnly signed and delivered, guaranteed by a personal pledge and torn up within 14 months. That is the record.
We mean well, but the Westminster system, which works well in Britain, is not suited for Africa—not yet anyway, it may be one day. Therefore, we have a record of total failure in Africa. We have not devised a single constitution suitable for the conditions of Africa. Totally unabashed by this unblemished record of failure, we impose sanctions on Rhodesia for not letting us think up a silly constitution for it. That is the basis of all this. We should approach this problem in a humble frame of mind, knowing that our judgment of what is good for Africans in Africa is practically worthless.
Let us start from that. It is an immensely complicated subject. I doubt if there is anything which is good for Africa. There are East Africa, West Africa, Central Africa and many different tribes. I had the good fortune to get right inside the life of one highly organised tribe when I was their spokesman, but every tribe is different, and we cannot generalise about what would be the right dispositions and the right constitutional arrangements for Africa just like that.
We have made this provisional agreement, which is wise and sensible. That agreement now is in danger because, unhappily, it was linked to a very slow


method of implementation. It is a wise and bold stroke, but the method is so slow that it will be imperilled, because into Rhodesia are pouring the accomplished mischief-makers of the world. Trouble is being stirred up in a country where there has never been trouble since 1923, where the races have lived together in harmony and mutual respect.
The hon. Member for Penistone plainly thinks that normal political activity is the same in Africa as it is in Chelsea and Westminster.

Mr. John Mendelson: I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman said something which came extremely close to it.

Mr. Mendelson: I did not say anything of the kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who has never misquoted me in the past, should not do so now. I said that the Foreign Secretary has engaged the House and the country to see to it that the fifth principle of normal political activities is fulfilled during the period when opinion is being tested.

Mr. Bell: I was not quoting the hon. Gentleman. I said that he seemed to believe this, because the whole tenor of his speech and most of its content was how normal political activity was not being allowed in Rhodesia. That was the case he was making. It is extremely difficult to carry out this operation at all even with complete order and quiet in Rhodesia.
How can one approach all those people, the African in the tribal lands where there is not much else but fish and the de-tribalised urban African? Does one say to him, "You know the terms which have been agreed between the British Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith, are you in favour of them?". Of course, he has not read them. How many hon. Members of this House have read them? The African does not know, and he wonders why he is being asked. Let us be sensible about this. This is an operation which must be gone through because of what is called the world community, which tends to mean the people who hang around the corridors of the United Nations and have got it into their heads that this lunatic operation must be gone through.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the spokesman of the Batonka did not know that there was a dispute with Britain?

Mr. Bell: I am not surprised. Once they were told that there was a dispute with Britain which started six and a half years ago and that there was now a proposed settlement, they would have to be told what the settlement was. They would be completely baffled at every stage of the proceedings. All we shall have is a froth, whipped up by South African Nationalist politicians and their supporters outside. How Mr. Smith will derive a conclusion from this, I do not know.
For Heaven's sake, let this process be quick, because the longer it goes on the more will the rats get at this sensible settlement. Nobody making the broadest judgment and assessment, which is all we can do, can believe other than that the Africa population of Rhodesia was extremely happy before U.D.I. and would like to go back to that system of racial non-discrimination and gradual advance which they had then. If we can give them that, we shall have performed a notable service for them.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I feel that the present events have had at least one good result and that is that they have brought those who criticise the settlement face to face with the consequences of its failures. Sanctions had considerably broken down, they have now broken down altogether. No one really believes that it is possible to re-impose them. The Foreign Secretary put the matter almost exactly right at Question Time the other day when he pointed out that we have never had power in Rhodesia and we have not the power now; that we had influence, that we still have some influence, but less, and that our duty is quite simply to use that influence to gain for our African wards a better settlement and a better future than they could otherwise get.
That seems to be the whole question before us. The Government, having decided that the terms they got were the best obtainable, are under a duty to implement them. I am sorry that they were diverted by the five principles. Those were, it is true, produced by the right hon. Gentleman seven years ago, but


they were produced in very different circumstances. It was a great mistake to try to revive them. It is almost always a mistake to go to a conference table with rigid remits or points or even rigid principles. Perhaps in this I find myself in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in feeling that principles are generally a mistake.
In this context I remember well President Wilson's 14 points at Versailles. I remember that Prime Minister Clemenceau observed that God Almighty had found 10 sufficient. Certainly the Conference at Versailles could have done with less than 14, as Lord Goodman and the negotiators at Salisbury could have done with less than five. Frankly, acceptability was always a nonsense. I did not think it would be such a mischievous nonsense as it has turned out to be but a nonsense it always was.
I am opposed to the Common Market but I believe that a referendum on an issue of that sort would be a nonsense, and I have always said so. If a referendum would be a nonsense with as sophisticated an electorate as we have, with all the vast experience of a hundred years of democratic institutions, what kind of a nonsense is it to pass these kind of proposals to people without any experience of this sort?
Look what has happened. One of the most remarkable things has been the attitude of the M.P.s elected by voting and those appointed by the chiefs. The democratically-elected Africans—if that be the right word and perhaps it is not—are in favour of a settlement but the chiefs' M.P.s are against it. Why? Do they regard it as too democratic? Do they regard it as contrary to chiefly influence? To this nonsense my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) wishes to add four more points. Good heavens! Do we not have enough?
The first of those points concerns Mr. Todd and his most charming daughter. I know Mr. Todd, I like him, I admire him, he is the most attractive of individuals and I think that any of us would be proud to have a daughter such as he has. For all of this, I am a great deal more sympathetic with the men of his own village of Shabani who died because of his silliness, just as I was deeply sorry for the men of Sharpeville who died because of Harold MacMillan's silliness.

We heard that great speech about the wind of change, but its only real effect was a massacre in Sharpeville and the repression of African progress. This is the trouble with the liberals, they make the boldest assertions, but their martyrdom is always by proxy. [Interruption.] The other points which are being put forward and which we are asked to accept are the A.N.C. going into the tribal areas, television and Sir Dingle Foot. These are a nonsense in this situation and we all know it.
Here we have a situation in which we have very little influence. What influence we have is disappearing. For Heaven's sake let us use what we have got while we have it to try to make things better instead of pandering to our own vanity and coddling our own consciences by producing principles which we know we cannot impose. As to the future, brilliant as I found Lord Goodman's negotiations, I do not think that the result is all that important. What is important is that Rhodesia should be released and allowed to go forward.
It was only by repressing economic progress in Rhodesia that we could keep the African under domination. Let me make myself perfectly clear, when I talk of Rhodesia I am on the black man's side not the side of the white man. I have no doubt about that at all. I never have had; they are the vast majority. I have seen apartheid work in South Africa. It has worked there because the South Africans have succeeded in avoiding dependence on a black proletariat. In none of the industries of South Africa have the South Africans ever allowed an indigenous proletariat to develop.
They have allowed only contract labour, to come for a short time. They have always had a white labour force sufficient to keep the industry going. When the figures are in the ratio of one to three, that is possible: when it is one to twenty it is not. The moment Rhodesian policy begins to advance there must be a trade union movement, development must depend on the black proletariat, a black labour force. That must mean African rule. It will not be because of the details of a constitution, because constitutions do not stand up in Africa. It will be, and I am enough of a Marxist to believe this, because the economic circumstances as they develop


will force this kind of dominion—[Interruption.] The people sitting behind me who giggle do so from their ignorance of this situation, and their prejudices. They are in a fix now that they are up against the rejection of a settlement which they denounced. They funk that rejection because they know the consequences will be disastrous to the African. I urge the Government to have the courage to do what they know is right and not to be diverted by this nonsense about a principle of acceptability which they know means nothing and which was developed seven years ago in quite different circumstances.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Not for the first time I find myself the spokesman by accident, following the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), of those who agree with his sturdy common sense. [Interruption.] It was refreshing to listen to him although I did not agree with everything he said. I returned from Central Africa two days before the House re-assembled after our short Christmas Recess. The chief purpose of my visit, which did not, alas, include Rhodesia, was commercial, and I declare that interest.
I should report, incidentally, although perhaps not as incidentally as might he thought at first, that I am convinced, speaking as a practical man, that the potential for British trade in West, East and Central Africa is vast. Conditions certainly are not always easy. Sometimes they are almost intolerably frustrating and difficult, but given a flexible approach and the abandonment of certain older attitudes not fashionable today, and possibly partnership with local enterprises and with Governments, there is much there aching for us to go in and achieve.
It is insufficient alone for us to talk in this House about improving living standards. The imperative is to do something about it, and I am quite certain that the advancement of commerce is an important, practical and constructive step which we in this country could increasingly take. Not only Dr. Johnson would remark
A man, Sir, should keep his friendship in constant repair.
It was said that trade followed the flag in the old days. I believe that political

liaisons can well follow trade, to the benefit of many countries, not least that of the Commonwealth countries where we still have many friends, and this applies to Rhodesia too.
Having so recently met and talked with a number of Ministers in four countries, having met commercial figures and having had substantial conversations with three Heads of State, from that and other experiences I venture to express an opinion about the Rhodesian problem to to this House.
Whatever the constitutional position, or indeed the practical position, to which my right hon. Friend the Foregin Secretary referred this afternoon, whatever it may or may not be, it is entirely clear what in Africa it is generally assumed to be. Our friends there, inside and outside Rhodesia, hold us, and no one else, responsible for the constitutional developments in that country. I believe we have a moral commitment which we cannot deny. We cannot opt out. Nor should we. We must accept the trust which others have put in us. The reason why others besides myself have accepted this settlement and support it most warmly, congratulating my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on what they have achieved, is that we believe that this provisional settlement really has marked a tremendous advance, as others have said so clearly in this debate.
Having said that, let us recognise the facts behind it. The wish of the indigenous population is to rule themselves and is now more determined than it has ever been. The African may be young in terms of education, literacy even, sophistication, experience of command, commercial leadership or government, but he is no longer placid. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in what, I thought, was a mischievous and unfortunate speech this afternoon, quoted the Ovambos. I think it right to quote them as an example of the pace of change of opinion. Who in this House would have suggested a year or two ago that the Ovambos would take this step by striking as they recently have? The African will have his way. Perhaps he is following the example of all of us who, as young men, wanted to set off on our own.
The trouble with all of us who have children is that we know they will want


to set off on their own too soon. We know and recognise this, but to stand in the face of this development and attempt to prevent it is to act like Canute. The trend is there and we must recognise it, and recognise that we cannot stop it. We may be impatient of it, but there it is and it is a fact. Our historical reaction to this scene has been honourable and realistic in the history of the British Empire, now the British Commonwealth. Indeed, it has been courageous and quite often ahead of popular opinion in this country.
Looking today at contemporary Africa I find we get credit for our realism and sense less often than we should. Too often now, I suggest to this House, it is the Communists, the Russians, perhaps through the front of other nations, or the Chinese more directly, who are regarded as the apostles of freedom and self-rule in certain territories in Africa. Such is the irony, such is the falsehood, for it is those who cry anti-colonial slogans the loudest who are the modern slavers in the contemporary scene. It is, surely, an error to allow the position of the West in general, and of Britain in particular, to be represented as reactionary. This House should be jealous of its good name and sensitive particularly of it at present.
If in the past we have been tolerant and patient, we need to show those qualities more than ever today. It is easy to laugh at the mistakes which some of these new States are making, to complain about them, to criticise them. There is plenty of wretched examples to put one's finger upon. But is it not romantic to visit a country like Zambia, where, at the time of independence, there were only a hundred graduates, to see today 1,500 young people in the university?
We need to show sympathy and to remember that, especially in African political life, the moderates' part is not always an easy one to play. Extremism is so much more fashionable, so much easier than moderation, but if we do not encourage reasonableness, who will? Above all, we dare not forget the reality which, I think, was much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that behind all the talk, behind all the politicking, the risk of savage racial war in southern Africa is real, and the danger

is not distant, amorphous: it is, I believe, almost imminent.
I spoke to one Head of State of my visit to the Victoria Falls and looking out over the Zambesi River to Rhodesia. I shall not easily forget his reply: "All of us", he said to me, "are on the edge of a cataclysm. We have moved slowly. inexorably towards it. You and your colleagues in the British House of Commons have a duty, in the ways that are open to you, to attempt to throw us a lifeline."
I make no comment on the circumstances in which the Pearce Commission is honourably attempting to make its inquiries. I have supported the attempt at a settlement. It is bold and rght, I believe, to attempt it. We all hope, of course, that the Report which the Commission will make in due course will be a positive one. If the attempted settlement is right, the further we can advance, and the more constructively we can advance, the better.
There is one other thing which requires to be said, I believe, in this debate if we are to act responsibly. We in this House must face the fact that it is possible that the Pearce Commission will report adversely. It is equally possible that the Commission will report favourably. That report will be contentious, and in some places highly contentious. I do not know how long it will be before we can receive the report—perhaps a few weeks only—but at least we have time. I am not asking for an answer tonight from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who himself has played a great part in this provisional settlement and who is to answer the debate, but I want to say this to him. Our aim must continue to be to lead Rhodesia to an honourable, legal independence as a sovereign democratic State—and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary empha-sised the word "democracy". Eventually the majority must rule, and it will do. I believe the only way now for us to avoid the possibilities of repression, at the least, and of bloodshed, at the worst, is to accept this and to be seen plainly to accept it, in honour and in truth. In line with British policy in regard to the Commonwealth over many years we have no alternative.
One matter for consideration, is whether we should not announce at some stage our view of what the timetable should be. At least it would avoid the disappointment of the "sometime, never" suggestions which can be such a powerful influence on men's minds in Africa at the present time.
With whatever reluctance, but with full awareness of the practical difficulties and their immensity, we can no longer rule out perhaps in extreme conditions, that we may need to take command of the situation in Rhodesia. I do not advocate that now; I merely say that we cannot rule it out. We may have to take command by direct or indirect methods. Be that as it may, I repeat: we have time to plan. I hope that it will not be wasted.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: It is a real honour to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who has made one of the most serious contributions that we have heard for many months from the benches opposite to this whole debate. I should like to spotlight three issues to which he referred, in which I am in almost complete agreement with him.
First, I too would commend to the House the opportunities for greatly strengthened trade with the majority of the African continent north of Zambesi—east, west and centre. Second, I would also draw attention to the real danger that, in the present context of African politics, it is the totalitarian Communists who too often take the opportunity to present themselves as the champions of progress and emancipation. Third, I agree that there is no reason whatever for us to be complacent about the time-scale within which savage racial warfare could develop within the southern part of Africa.
It has not been a happy spectacle for anyone to watch the difficulties of the Foreign Secretary in recent weeks as he has become increasingly enmeshed in the pressures and counter-pressures of his hon. Friends as they affect this issue. I believe that he is a man with real sensitivities who feels acutely the embarrassment and the difficulty of his position.
What I am most sad of all to see is the increasing tendency for the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman is confronted to distort quite seriously the objectivity of his assessment. On Monday he made what I think he himself may come to regard as a rather unfortunate statement, in which he suggested that the violence and disruption of order in Rhodesia at the moment was largely to be laid at the feet of the Africans who were taking the law into their own hands.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a minority, but this was the overall impression conveyed in that statement. There was no attempt, as there should have been if he were being honest with the House, to look to the origins of that frustration and activity, as other hon. Members have tried to do today. The origins of that problem lie in the violence and in the techniques enshrined in the police state system of the régime as it stands.
I believe also that the right hon. Gentleman may come to regret, when he reflects on it, the slant of his speech this afternoon. I would agree with others that we have very little power on the ground in Rhodesia, but the issue with which the right hon. Gentleman totally failed to grapple was why, if Smith had all the cards in his hand with the 1969 constitution, he ever got himself involved in negotiations for a settlement. It is, of course, because the pressure of sanctions, even if they may have hit the African majority worst, is being felt by the community of Rhodesia as a whole. He wanted to do his best to release himself from the pressures and the consequences of sanctions.
Some cynics suggest that Smith now believes that things have gone so far that sanctions will not be reimposed, that it does not matter to him whether the agreement goes through or not. That is why it is all the more important for the Foreign Secretary to make it absolutely clear that, if the people of Rhodesia do not endorse this settlement and it is therefore impossible for the Government to sign an agreement with the existing régime, sanctions will be reintroduced with all the authority at our disposal.

Mr. David Steel: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Mr. Smith has been somewhat clearer on this matter than the


present Government and that, in his speech commending the settlement on 25th November, he said:
The alternative to accepting this agreement is to maintain the status quo which means retaining the present constitution without amendment and the continuation of sanctions"?
Are we not entitled to expect as clear a statement from the Government today?

Mr. Judd: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. Not for the first time, in this debate, I agree with everything he has said.
I am deeply disturbed by the increasing tendency of commentators who should know better to say that the agreement is so much in the interests of the African majority, if only they would understand it, that, even if they did not endorse it, it would be important for the Government to go ahead and implement it in any case. I hope we can have a clear assurance from the Government today that they are not contemplating any such folly.
My concluding observation is very much in line with the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Taunton. Of course, many of us who recoil from the concept of violence would welcome any opportunity for evolutionary gradual change, but if that is to succeed in any political situation it is essential that the concessions available are always ahead of the aspirations of the relatively deprived section of the community.
The reality of the situation in southern Africa is that, increasingly, a majority of the deprived section of the population, following its articulate leadership—it is always articulate leadership that matters initially in these situations—has aspirations which outstrip any available concessions. The aspirations of the majority are for majority rule. This is the one basic concession which the minority who hold the strings at the moment are not prepared to make.
I therefore conclude sadly by saying that, since we have a responsibility to the white minority as well as to the black majority, that responsibility demands that we say clearly and without prevarication what we believe the reality to be. I am sad that so few have recognised, here and among the white community in southern Africa, that the only hope for a rightful place in southern Africa for the white community, who have genuine roots

there, is to come to terms as rapidly as they possibly can with the inevitability and the justice of majority rule.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am very glad to have the privilege of making a brief contribution at the end of what has been a very good and constructive debate. One of my hon. Friends said that he regretted, and indeed questioned, the necessity for it. To some extent I would agree with those sentiments, but I believe that we have seen the House at its best today. We have had some very forthright and constructive speeches from both sides. What is apparent to everyone is that there is deep feeling on this issue and great sadness, even though we might differ in our interpretations of some of the really contentious points.
I shared the sadness and concern which was evident throughout the House when the news came through last week of the arrest of the Todds. This is an act which one finds it difficult to explain rationally. It certainly puts Mr. Smith's credibility on the line to some extent. On the other hand, it is only right to try to be fair to all parties in a debate like this. After all, twice in the past, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, negotiations have almost succeeded. Twice in the past Mr. Smith has been a very tough negotiator with a previous Administration and surely we should consider that he could have conceded all sorts of things. He could have reached a settlement with the previous Administration and then abrogated it immediately afterwards, having had his hands freed and being completely free to do so. Though it is difficult to rationalise what happened last week, we should bear in mind that we are dealing with a man who has great problems with his own extremist minority and who might well be utterly sincere in wanting the settlement which he says he wants.
To me, the real issue is the future of the black people of Rhodesia. I hope the House will forgive me if I try to draw something of an analogy. I hope that nobody doubts my own deep concern for those in all parts of the world who are oppressed and the subject of difficult, and indeed savage, régimes. I have the honour to be chairman of an all-party group concerned with the lot of the Jewish citizens of the U.S.S.R. The thing


that worries me more than anything is the fact that we are powerless to do anything to help those people. We can seek to influence, we can talk, we can send telegrams and letters which are not answered, but we are powerless to do anything.
In the case of Rhodesia we have a little power, a little chance to influence the situation and to try to make sure that the lot of the black African in Rhodesia can be improved. It is either this settlement or the 1969 constitution and progress towards apartheid and possible union with South Africa. These are the realities we must face.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) feels deeply on these issues, as I do, and for the most honourable reasons reaches rather different conclusions. The reality of the situation is that in Rhodesia today the lot of the black African is not a happy one from a constitutional or political point of view. If this settlement is not implemented the lot of the black African in Rhodesia will not improve in the years ahead. It is easy for us to sit here in this House and to pontificate and talk glibly of what might or might not happen if the settlement is not implemented. It is very easy to be martyrs by proxy, which was a matter mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), although I did not agree with everything he said. It is the people of Rhodesia who should be our concern. It should be our prime purpose today to try to exercise a moderating influence so that the Pearce Commission can complete its task in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity and can report back to my right hon. Friend what, so far as it can gauge, is the true opinion in Rhodesia.
I hope that the balance of opinion in Rhodesia will be in favour of the settlement. I believe that it is not the most glorious moment in the history of the British Commonwealth but I believe that my right hon. Friend has made a very notable achievement. If the settlement succeeds, I believe that this House, this country and the people of Africa as a whole will in future have good cause to thank my right hon. Friend and Lord Goodman for what they have done. Therefore, it is my earnest hope

that the Pearce Commission will be able to get on with the job in Rhodesia without feeling that this House is seeking to breathe down its neck. I also hope it will be able to get on with its job without feeling that the Africans are being intimidated in Rhodesia; I hope it will be able to come back and say to my right hon. Friend, "Yes, they believe that this offers the best solution for them". I hope the message can go out today that this is the only chance they have, short of fratricidal strife and terrible bloodshed, to make orderly and proper progress to the sort of constitution that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish them to enjoy.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) will forgive me if I follow his remarks only in brevity. I am sure he will agree that this debate has been an example of normal political activity at its best. This has been exemplified by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). This is a debate about normal political activity and the meaning of that phrase, and about the extent to which the fifth principle enshrined in the agreements which have for so long been sought by Governments of both parties may be and can be carried out by the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia.
How far is there a proper test of opinion in that unhappy country at the moment? I submit—and I shall confine my brief remarks to this one issue—that there is cause for concern which should be expressed to the Foreign Secretary in this House about the way in which the Pearce Commission has gone about its task, as well as about the sequence of events which followed the arrests and shootings at Shabani and elsewhere.
First, it seems to me that in some ways the Pearce Commission set about its task in a somewhat tendentious manner and that there is throughout the doings of the Pearce Commission, as in the many statements which we have had from the Government both today and on previous occasions, an assumption that the only alternatives before the Rhodesians are, first, the 1969 constitution, with all that that implies and, secondly, the settlement which has been negotiated by Lord Goodman. We would argue that there


are other alternatives which may have to be considered in the fullness of time if the Pearce Commission returns with a negative report.
I am sorry that the Pearce Commission has underrated the value of radio as a medium for getting over its message to the mass of the African population, particularly in the tribal territories. Indeed Lord Harlech, who has been the most voluble member of the Commission, was asked a question about this matter a week before the Commission set out on its task. He replied that spouting about the Commission on the radio might not be the best means of putting things across. I would have thought that spouting on the radio was the best way of putting things across to the vast majority of Africans in the tribal territories.
I should not repeat the sad catalogue of shootings and arrests which have taken place since then. However, we should like to hear from the Government in their reply tonight the reason that the free expression of written opinion by urban Africans to the Commission was stopped. We wish to hear more about why the expensive journey by a Foreign Office official, Mr. Mansfield, resulted in no more information to this House than we could have learned a week earlier from Mr. Lardner Burke—no more information about the reasons for the detention of Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano and of the Todds. In view of the somewhat flippant remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), may I say that I have known Mr. Garfield Todd for a long time and his daughter Miss Judith Todd is one of my oldest friends. Nobody could say that they are leaders to darkness and death. Those who say that they would connive at terrorism must be out of their minds. Mr. Todd and his daughter Judith, as anybody who has shared a platform with them and who has been involved in putting the case against the present régime in Rhodesia must know, are the most careful and legalistic representatives of enlightened opinion against the present settlement. They are not people who have flirted with terrorism.
We want a more sufficient answer by the Foreign Secretary on why these detentions have taken place. If we do not get answers and the Pearce Commission continues to be frustrated as in the past, hon.

Members on both sides of the House would agree that it may be necessary at that stage for the Commission to come home. The Commission itself has been left in the position in which it is the only judge of whether its mission could be accomplished. It is responsible to the Government and to this House. This House is not a broker for the settlement negotiated by Lord Goodman. The House has to decide whether the agreement is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
The hon. Member for Cannock said that the settlement would be in the best interests of the Africans. There are two views about that, equally sincerely held. But if the Africans appear to be putting the contrary view and seem to be so frustrated that, in the opinion of this House, normal political activity is impossible, I fear we should say to Lord Pearce that he is entitled to receive the advice of Her Majesty's Government on whether the mission should continue.

6.30 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I wish to make only two or three points. The first is that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), and to a lesser extent one or two other hon. Members opposite, made the point that Southern Rhodesia was a police State and, therefore, that the only hope of avoiding a deterioration in conditions in Southern Rhodesia and an inevitable drift towards apartheid was to get the proposed agreement signed. However, there is no evidence to suppose that the very men who are dedicated to apartheid and the enforcement of a police State will change their attitude overnight simply because they have signed a piece of paper. In fact, since the Pearce Commission began its work we have seen the endorsement of all that some of us feel about the Smith régime.
The Foreign Secretary said that he has no power to do anything about what is taking place in Southern Rhodesia in relation to the settlement. He also quoted from a speech of the former Prime Minister in which my right hon. Friend said that we had no control over the hangings which took place in Southern Rhodesia. But the two are not synonymous. Arm in arm with the presentation of the settlement proposals to this House was the understanding that the Foreign Secretary


had reached an agreement with Ian Smith, which would be upheld, that in a certain climate and with certain guarantees the settlement would be put before the people of Southern Rhodesia as a whole. If these guarantees are not met, the Foreign Secretary says that he has no power to do anything. We say that he should proclaim that the Smith régime has not fulfilled its commitments to him when the proposals were put to it.
I was disturbed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say on Monday that he could not question Smith's right to maintain security, provided that the minimum amount of force was used. The minimum amount of force being used in Rhodesia is that which has locked up those who oppose the settlement. I asked the Foreign Secretary, and I ask him again, how many of those who have been detained, gassed, arrested, shot or murdered are people who were advocating acceptance of the settlement. That is the test.
The Foreign Secretary's reply about the proposed Labour Party delegation filled me with foreboding. First, there was nothing in the exchanges between the General Secretary of the Labour Party and the Foreign Secretary or those between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman to say that the delegation would go out to Southern Rhodesia advocating non-acceptance of the settlement. That was not the position. It was going to see what was taking place in Southern Rhodesia.
The Foreign Secretary is behaving very much like Ian Smith. He is preventing people going to see what is happening in Southern Rhodesia because he knows them as individuals who disagree with the settlement. Smith has locked up the Todds not because of anything they have done but because of what they might do. That is why the Foreign Secretary is unhappy about a Labour Party delegation going to Southern Rhodesia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Lady that one member of the party opposite is in Rhodesia now, and there has been no trouble. I have said that I think that hon. Members should be able to go to Rhodesia to observe.

Miss Lestor: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that. He said that he did not—[Interruption] The right hon. Gentleman should not quote himself out of context. He said that he did not see any point in a delegation made up of members of a political party going there when we were opposed to the settlement. That appears in HANSARD. That is why I am apprehensive about the whole conduct of the settlement and the attitude that the right hon. Gentleman has directed to it.
What this House should be discussing and what it will have to face—some of us said this when we opposed the "Tiger" and the "Fearless" proposals—is what we do when the settlement fails and when Lord Pearce comes back and says that it is not on. What then will be the future of both the whites and the blacks in Southern Rhodesia?

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: This debate was initiated by the Opposition to consider one specific and urgent issue. The debate concerns the fifth of the five principles; that is, the acceptability to the Rhodesian people as a whole of the agreement negotiated by the Foreign Secretary in November. The debate concerns the promise of normal political activity while this test of acceptability is applied. I shall deal almost entirely in my speech with that specific and urgent point.
But it is first necessary to record that the Foreign Secretary's response to our concern about the fifth principle during the last 14 days has made a number of general conclusions about the Rhodesian settlement inevitable. The first is that, since the Commission has been in Rhodesia, no one has seriously argued that Mr. Smith has kept his word about the test of acceptability. Since he has not kept his word about the fifth principle, we believe that this bodes ill for the prospect of his keeping his word about the other four.
Secondly, the last 14 days have revealed a great deal about the relationship between the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith. It is clear, and it was made tragically evident today, that the right hon. Gentleman is continually willing


to carry Mr. Smith's messages to this House. To us, that bodes a great deal of ill for the future if the future involves, as involve it may, new negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the régime in Salisbury.
The Foreign Secretary's defence of his attitude is that he has no power in Rhodesia and that he can do no more than repeat to this House the will of Mr. Smith. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He claims that in November he struck a genuine bargain with the Smith régime. If it was a genuine bargain, he has the power and the ability to say to the Smith régime, "Break or change your side of the agreement, and we shall change or abandon ours." To be able to say that, the right hon. Gentleman has to retain power and influence by at least retaining the prospects of sanctions. But he has to tell us clearly what it was that happened in November and whether there was a bargain with concessions and promises made by both sides. If he made a genuine bargain he has power. If he has no power, it was capitulation.
The judgment of the Opposition and of the country on the November agreement needs no repetition. The Foreign Secretary has never pretended that it was any better than the lesser of a series of evils. Today, the best that he could say about it was that it was "as good as could be obtained". If that is the best he can say about it, he will understand why we regard the test of acceptance on the part of the Rhodesian people as being crucially important.
That is why we want the Pearce Commission to continue its work. It is why we need to be told something about the Commission's continuation which we might have hoped was self-evident, namely, that the work be continued according to the promise that Mr. Smith made to the Foreign Secretary and the promise that the right hon. Gentleman repeated to this House.
I make no criticism of the Commission except, if it be a criticism, to express surprise at some of the comments by the Commission's deputy chairman on Saturday evening. On a number of specific issues the Commission has been a great deal more active in pursuit of the promise

of normal political activity than has the Foreign Secretary.
The Commission has made it clear that it wants to see the Rev. Sithole. We do not know whether the Government think that that is right and will press for it to happen. The Commission is concerned about the prospects of public meetings in the tribal trust areas. I do not know hether the Government will press for them. The Commission is specifically critical about the detention of Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter and of Mr. Chinamano.
We do not know any more about the detention of Mr. Todd, though we have been promised some sort of statement for the last six days, than the simple reiteration by the Foreign Secretary of this memorable phrase: "Mr. Todd was detained for reasons of internal security…The reason for that decision Mr. Smith was unwilling to reveal." I have to say to the Foreign Secretary, I hope calmly but after very great consideration, that I regard that as a shameful answer. It is shameful on the Foreign Secretary and vicariously shameful, I fear, on those Members of the House of Commons who had to listen to it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I was asked, as I understood it, to ascertain from Mr. Smith why he had interned Mr. Todd. I repeated what Mr. Smith said to me. I thought that the House wanted that information.

Mr. Hattersley: My original contention was that the Foreign Secretary had become nothing more than Mr. Smith's message-carrier. If he wants to reverse that reputation, I give way at once while he tells the House how much he deplores the message that he was given and how much he hopes for Mr. Todd's release. Mr. Smith did not give a reason for Mr. Todd's detention but many people in the country believe that they know what it is: Mr. Todd's impending departure to this country to put the case of some of his African colleagues.
The detention of Mr. Chinamano is now causing similar fears in Rhodesia relating to a similar allegation. I discovered from a professional colleague this afternoon that, about two hours before he was arrested, Mr. Chinamano had agreed to do a broadcast for the British Broadcasting Corporation putting


the African point of view. Those people who conclude that there was a relationship between Mr. Todd's arrest and his departure for England to put his case also conclude now that similar considerations affect the arrest of Mr. Chinamano.
It seems detestable that while the Smith régime pretends to allow normal political activity, two of the spokesmen for the African majority, who are likely not only to advance the cause of the Africans but to advance it well and persuasively, are detained very shortly after arrangements are made for that cause to be advanced and certainly before the speeches or broadcasts can be made.
I hope that we hear from the Attorney-General that he will find out whether that description of the situation from the people on the spot is the message which Mr. Smith would want to convey to this House. If he will convey that information, we will be grateful: and if he would comment on it, we would be even more grateful and slightly surprised.
I turn to two other matters about which this House has to be concerned and about which something must be said by the Attorney-General when he replies to the debate. The first concerns violence. The Foreign Secretary is rightly swift to condemn violence, and to condemn violence in Rhodesia. All of us support him in that. But since Christmas the Foreign Secretary has been very selective in those condemnations. It is violent to fire on and to kill unarmed African demonstrators. It is violent to suppress normal political freedoms. It is certainly violent to detain without trial those who would speak on behalf of freedom. I hope that the debate will not be concluded without a word of condemnation from the Government for that sort of violence.
I hope, too, that the debate will not be concluded without the Attorney-General at least assaying to answer some of the questions which were put to the Government last Wednesday, on Monday and again by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) this afternoon and to which there has not been the semblance of an answer.
We want to know what possible justification there is for the detention of Miss Todd, Mr. Todd and Mr. Chinamano. We want to know about the prospects

of public meetings in tribal trust areas. We want to know about broadcasting facilities for every point of view in Rhodesia. We want to know whether there is the prospect of the Pearce Commission carrying on its work in the way that this House was promised and in the way that Mr. Smith undertook. We are not, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, trying to go over the heads of the Commission. We want it to work in the appropriate atmosphere and to provide an accurate answer. Our fear is that that is not happening and that the Government are not pressing that it should happen.
We understand very well the difficulties of extracting this kind of information from Mr. Smith. But we understood last Wednesday, when my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition were most patient in the face of the Foreign Secretary's explanations, that Mr. Mansfield had been sent to Rhodesia to obtain exactly those answers. We thought that Monday's statement was to provide the answers which Mr. Mansfield had helped to supply. It did not. And today's debate has supplied none of the answers to the crucial questions. If, as I read, Mr. Mansfield returns this evening, perhaps with some of the information about his person, we will expect a statement tomorrow from the Foreign Secretary giving us the answers to these questions.
In the meantime I want to reiterate the Opposition's view. We are anxious that the Pearce Commission should continue its work. We want it to continue in an atmosphere, to quote the Foreign Secretary, of normal political activity. We do not see that situation in Rhodesia today. Perhaps more important, we do not see the Foreign Secretary struggling to achieve it. Because of that we will return to the subject time after time and tonight, to demonstrate our deep concern, we will divide the House.

6.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): Unlike the speeches by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who reminded the House of the gravity of the matter which


we are debating this afternoon, and that was echoed in a distinguished speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann).
I say straight away to the House that, with limited personal knowledge of Africa and even more limited personal knowledge of Rhodesia, I can never approach a debate about Rhodesia or Africa save with a real sense of anxiety, particularly when dealing with Rhodesia, at the responsibilities which are borne by the House. I share that feeling which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack).
I will not repeat my personal views on what I heard and saw in Rhodesia. I saw little but heard a lot—that is, a lot compared with other hon. Members. I still cannot get from my mind the hundred or so people who spoke about the need for a new initiative, the need for a new spirit and the need for some hope. I am not ashamed to say that I cannot get that from my mind.
I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not accept these proposals. They demonstrated that in the Division on 1st December. Nevertheless, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the proposals are a step forward. But what we think at this stage does not matter. What matters is the opinion of the people of Rhodesia who at this time are being consulted by the Commission.
I think that there was a certain inconsistency in what the hon. Member for Sparkbrook said in his winding-up speech for the Opposition, because his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said that the Africans were responding to the present opportunity. He spoke of them responding in the towns, the villages and the most remote areas. They cannot at the same time complain about lack of political activity. Political activity is being demonstrated by those who are responding to the opportunity by coming to those meetings and taking part in those activities. [Interruption.] I am quoting the right hon. Gentleman's own words. He spoke about them responding to this particular opportunity.

Mr. Healey: Of course I applaud the African response, but to claim that when the Africans respond and they are put

into gaol, tear-gassed, shot and wounded is normal political activity is a travesty of the facts.

The Attorney-General: That is not what I said, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He was complaining that there was no normal political activity, yet in the same breath he was congratulating the Africans on taking this opportunity. The opportunity is given for them to make their views known to the Commission. The Commission has been sent by the Government to test the reaction of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
The only sanction which remains, as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, would be the removal of the Commission. If the conditions were not right, the removal of the Commission would lead inevitably to no settlement, and we believe that with no settlement there would be an inevitable move to a state of apartheid. In the absence of a report by the Commission asking that it be withdrawn, or in the absence of withdrawal by the Commission itself, that would be utterly irresponsible.
It appears that the Commission is receiving reactions, and it is right that it should. It was always accepted by the previous Administration, as it has been by the present one, that the appropriate method of testing would be by a Commission. This is now the crucially important stage about which the hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke. It is a British Commission appointed by the United Kingdom to report back to Her Majesty's Government. It must be independent. It must make an assessment of the true attitude, not the superficial, not the outward appearance, not the attitude of a few, but the true attitude and reaction of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
Of necessity, any agreement made in consequence of these proposals in 1971, or the proposals nearly successfully negotiated by the previous Administration, inevitably involves complex matters. These proposals involve the making of a constitution. They involve changes in the law. They involve providing for checks and balances. All these matters call for a Commission which, to do its task, must have patience and determination; and it must do its task thoroughly.
The Commission, appointed by the British Government, has terms of reference which require it to ascertain directly from all sections of the population of Rhodesia whether the proposals are acceptable, and then to report to the British Government. The Commission must satisfy itself on whether the settlement is acceptable. It cannot do that—the settlement cannot be acceptable—if the people of Rhodesia have not had the terms explained to them. Moreover, according to its terms of reference, the Commission must be satisfied that normal political activities have been permitted, provided that they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. That is a task which has been imposed upon the Commission in its terms of reference, and the judgment on the issue as to whether it is satisfied that normal political activities have been permitted has been placed fairly and squarely upon the Commission itself. It is up to the Commission, by its terms of reference, to make this judgment.
The Commission is now in Rhodesia. It is in the best position to judge. The head of the Commission, Lord Pearce, has said that he does not think that the resulting situation as regards political activity is so serious that he and his colleagues should withdraw.
I repeat that, with the Commission having those duties imposed upon it and having to make that judgment, it certainly would not be right for the British Government to interfere, as some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested. It is an independent Commission. It will not do anything which it does not require and it will do what it does require. Any other conduct would reflect upon the independence of the Commission itself.
The Commission has not asked the British Government to take up any matters with Mr. Smith. If it does, the Government will. If it is prevented in its duty, if it is prevented from carrying out its task, the Commission will report to the Government. But it has not done so so far.

Mr. George Cunningham: If the Government were so keen to have an independent Commission, why are many members of it Government servants?

The Attorney-General: They are not Government servants. The hon. Gentle

man ought to know that the Commission is wholly independent. They are not Government servants. They are honourable men sent out there to do a task. They have said that they will give, as they are required to give, an honest answer, as it has been said, to the questions which they have been asked to determine.

Mr. Thorpe: If the matter of the conditions for normal political campaigning is to be left entirely to the Pearce Commission—if the Foreign Secretary was washing his hands of the matter—why was Mr. Mansfield sent out to report back to the Foreign Secretary?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman sounds naive and ingenuous but I know very well that he is not. Of course, my right hon. Friend sent out Mr. Mansfield. There are many matters which he wishes to know and to have reported directly hack to him. But the question whether the Commission can carry out its duties is a matter solely for the Commission on which to make up its mind and come to a judgment.
I remind the right hon. Member for Leeds, East of what was said on 20th January, because he sometimes seemed so to telescope what he said the Commission had said as, perhaps, to change a little of the sense, though without any intention, I am sure. This is what Lord Pearce said on 20th January:
To say that there has been no political activity in any of the tribal trust lands would seem untenable in the light of what our Commissioners have told us so far
He went on to say:
The real question will be the degree to which freedom of political expression is permitted. If people are detained simply to silence them"—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Attorney-General: Yes—
then even in existing conditions it is not allowing normal political activity.
Lord Pearce added:
We are loth to make a premature judgment on allegations and counter-allegations which are in our present state of knowledge hard to evaluate, premature and possibly erroneous.
The head of the Commission himself well knows and appreciates the importance of normal political activity, and he well knows the balance there has to


be between normal political activity and other activity which might amount to intimidation.
On 23rd January Lord Pearce said that a lot of good, constructive work had been done. He spoke of the need for a calm and peaceful atmosphere. About the matter of the detention of Mr. Garfield Todd and Miss Todd, he said:
I am not prepared at this moment to give any evaluation of the situation because we have not finished our considerations. We have already stated that we regard this as a matter of great importance to keep the balance, a fair balance, between expressions of political thought and the maintenance of peace and order…but it is a matter that we have very much in mind.
By today, 26th January, in the opinion of the Commission the atmosphere has much improved.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) asked me about the movement to parity. As I said in the debate on 1st December, this is what the United Kingdom will require to be enacted by the Rhodesian Parliament before the United Kingdom Parliament would ever be asked to legis

late in the event of the test of acceptability showing that the proposals proved acceptable.

When he was Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, who was Minister of Defence at the time, well knows, was unable to force the Rhodesian Government back into a state of legality. They were unable to prevent the creation of the 1969 constitution. They negotiated and they failed. No doubt it was to the bitter disappointment of the right hon. Gentleman. But the Commission is now in Rhodesia, and it is enjoined to discover whether the proposals are acceptable. We are many thousands of miles away, and we cannot do the Commission's task. I am certain that the Commission will not be driven away or run away until it has done its task. Above all, we owe it to the people of Rhodesia to let the Commission judge, and to await its report.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 294.

Division No. 45.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Concannon, J. D.
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)


Albu, Austen
Conlan, Bernard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allen, Scholefield
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Cronin, John
Ford, Ben


Ashley, Jack
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Freeson, Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dalyell, Tarn
Galpern, Sir Myer


Barnes, Michael
Davidson, Arthur
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Golding, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)
Gourlay, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Booth, Albert
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Hamling, William


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dormand, J. D.
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Driberg, Tom
Hattersley, Roy


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunn, James A.
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dunnett, Jack
Hilton, W. S.


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Hooson, Emlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Edelman, Maurice
Horam, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Houghton, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ellis, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Cohen, Stanley
Ewing, Henry
Hughes, Roy (Newport)



Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Hunter, Adam




Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Janner, Greville
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward
Sillars, James


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silverman, Julius


John, Brynmor
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skinner, Dennis


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Steel, David


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Judd, Frank
O'Malley, Brian
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Kaufman, Gerald
Oram, Bert
Strang, Gavin


Kelly, Richard
Orbach, Maurice
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Stanley
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


KinnocK, Neil
Oswald, Thomas
Swain, Thomas


Lambie, David
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Taverne, Dick


Lamond, James
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Latham, Arthur
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lawson, George
Palmer, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tinn, James


Leonard, Dick
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tomney, Frank


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tuck, Raphael


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
Varley, Eric G.


Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest G.
Wainwright, Edwin


Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Loughlin, Charles
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wallace, George


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David


McBride, Neil
Probert, Arthur
Weitzman, David


McCann, John
Rankin, John
Wellbeloved, James


McCartney, Hugh
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Whitehead, Phillip


Mackenzie, Gregor
Richard, Ivor
Whitlock, William


Mackie, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roderick, Caerwyn (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marks, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Marquand, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Marsden, F.
Sandelson, Neville
Woof, Robert


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Mayhew, Christopher
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Meacher, Michael




Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert




Mendelson, John






NOES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cooper, A. E.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bray, Ronald
Cordle, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cormack, Patrick


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Costain, A. P.


Astor, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Humphrey
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Crouch, David


Awdry, Daniel
Bryan, Paul
Crowder, F. P.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Buck, Antony
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Batsford, Brian
Burden, F. A.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dean, Paul


Bell, Ronald
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Carlisle, Mark
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Benyon, W.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dixon, Piers


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Biffen, John
Channon, Paul
Drayson, G. B.


Biggs-Davison, John
Chapman, Sydney
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Blaker, Peter
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dykes, Hugh


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eden, Sir John


Body, Richard
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Boscawen, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bowden, Andrew
Cockeram, Eric
Farr, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooke, Robert
Fell, Anthony




Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knox, David
Redmond, Robert


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lambton, Antony
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fortescue, Tim
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Foster, Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fowler, Norman
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McAddon, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Rost, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin
Royle, Anthony


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Scott, Nicholas


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gray, Hamish
Madel, David
Simeons, Charles


Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.
Sinclair, Sir George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mather, Carol
Soref, Harold


Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Spence, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray
Sproat, Iain


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Sutcliffe, John


Havers, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Tapsell, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernie
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hay, John
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Heseltine. Michael
More, Jasper
Tebbit, Norman


Hicks, Robert
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hiley, Joseph
Mudd, David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tilney, John


Holt, Miss Mary
Neave, Airey
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Trew, Peter


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hunt, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Waddington, David


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


James, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Walters, Dennis


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Percival, Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton
Wiggin, Jerry


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wilkinson, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kershaw, Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Kilfedder, James
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Kimball, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Younger, Hn. George


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Kinsey, J. R.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter



Kirk, Peter




Kitson, Timothy




Knight, Mrs. Jill

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.11 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The title of this Measure has in brackets the word "Amendment". Perhaps we might better have used the words "miscellaneous provisions", because the Bill deals with a number of important matters relating to town planing which we have collected together in one Measure.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I endeavour to deal with the provisions of the Bill in four parts—first, the examination in public of structure plans; second, the structure plan areas; third, office development control; and, fourth, demolition in conservation areas. The Bill conveniently divides into these subjects, although that is not the order in which they appear in the Measure. Perhaps I have chosen them to some extent in order of importance.
I will start with Clause 3, which deals with the new procedure for the examination of structure plans. I shall probably shock those to whom all planning is anathema—those who I might call members of the lillies of the field school—when I say that town planning is now on a three-tier system with a mezzanine floor.
At the top is the regional strategy, prepared in the regions by an expert team provided by my Department and local authorities, sponsored by the Regional Economic Planning Council and standing conference of local planning authorities in each region. That is at the top of the planning pyramid.
One next comes to the structure plans, which will be prepared by the local planning authorities; under local government reform these will be prepared by county planning authorities. These are the plans which were introduced under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968.
It is perhaps wrong to call them plans in this context in that they consist of a statement of strategy, rather than a design on a map, setting out the policy and prin

ciples on which a whole planning area is to be planned, but not drawing lines on a map or getting into those sort of details.
One next comes down to the basic grass roots planning of an area; that is the drawing of lines on an Ordnance Survey map to show in detail how it will affect the citizen in the street or the plot of land.
I said that there was in this three-tier system of planning a mezzanine floor. Here we find the industrial development control and office development permit systems. I do not think we should leave these out in thinking of planning. More and more they will come into the planning scheme rather than be remote from it. Indeed, in this Bill we deal with the O.D.P. system.
The Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, introduced a new development plan system. That sought to remedy the problems which had become apparent in the system originally introduced in 1947. I do not say that they were problems inherent in the 1947 system, but that is the way it worked out, and I am shocked to have to tell the House that I have found development plans in my Department which we have been conscientiously studying—there is nothing wrong in this under the present law—for 10 years or more. and we are still studying them.
This is happening because they are development plans which were detailed as "land use plans" and the responsibility of the Minister under the 1947 legislation had become involved in a mass of detail. Consequently, long delays ensued while the plans awaited the Minister's approval.
The new 1968 system, if I may call it that as a form of verbal shorthand, replaces the old development plan by two separate plans. The first is the structure plan, setting out broad strategic policies and proposals—it is eventually submitted to the Secretary of State—and the second stage is the local plan, which sets out in detail the way in which the structure plan proposals will be implemented at the local level. The local plan will not come before the Secretary of State unless he considers it needs his approval.
These new structure plans are not, as were the old plans, limited to land use. The planning authority must now cover transportation and take account of the


economic implications of its proposals, and particularly of their relationship to regional policy. In the new system there is to be, for the first time in the history of development plans, a statutory process of public participation for both the structure and local plans so that people may have adequate opportunities to know about the choice of strategies and the proposals of their local planning authority and make their influence felt at this formative stage.
Thus, the new development plan system under the 1968 Act is different in three respects from its predecessors. First, it is a two-tier system of structure and local plans. Second, it is what I would call "whole planning"—not just land use but economic and regional planning. Third, we have public participation.
If my tone of voice is complimentary to this system, I admit at once that it was introduced by the Labour Government. I had pleasure in being a Member of the Committee which examined the Measure which introduced the system and I hope that I gave it all the support it deserved, because it is a system which I think we can make work.
However, those far-reaching changes were not accompanied by changes in the provisions for public local inquiries into objections. That is what we missed in dealing with the system. The Act just provided for an inquiriy into structure and local plans on the sort of litigation basis on which inquiries are held at present. I go as far as saying that that omission to devise an appropriate kind of inquiry for a structure plan could be fatal to the whole system we set up under the 1968 Act. The delay, the blight, the failure to probe and decide the real issues, the loss of sight of the wood for the trees, would frustrate planning and bring chaos to both development and conservation, which we want to achieve under the new planning system.
In the Bill we are not proposing to alter the well-established arrangements for public local inquiries into local plans. These are the ones in which we deal with the detail of the individual's property and his interests. It is clearly right that there should continue to be not only the right to object but for objections which are not withdrawn to be heard at a normal type of inquiry as we know it; no matter how minor the objections may be, from

a financial or area point of view, they should be thoroughly considered. But the House will appreciate that if an inquiry in that traditional form had to be held on the basis of detailed objections to the new structure plan, there would be an unnecessary and unacceptable overlap, and consequently delay. Above all, we should have frustrated what has all along been seen as the prime object of the structure plan—the need for a plan which would enable the local planning authority to present, and the Secretary of State to consider matters of policy and general proposals, and which would secure the implementation of regional plans such as that which the Secretary of State has already approved for the South-East.
What the Government are therefore seeking to evolve from this new form of plan is a more relevant means of publicly examining the key issues which are raised by that plan. There will be a wide range of material from which to identify those issues—from the statement which the planning authority has to make on the outcome of the public participation which it has carried out, to the Secretary of State's own examination of the plan and the objections to it received. From all those we shall be able to identify the major issues raised by that plan.
As for the examination itself, which will be held in public, we need to provide a panel with a suitably independent chairman to discuss matters with the planning authority and with other participants on the inquiry, to probe aspects which have been seriously contested or give rise to objections, to assess worthwhile alternatives and finally to make a report to the Secretary of State. That report would he published, providing him with a basis for a decision on the plan far more relevant to the structural issues than could ever be the case if the examination had been concerned with detailed objections.
The Bill does not itself make any detailed provisions relating to the public examination. The new procedure will be evolved in consultation with those concerned, particularly with the Council on Tribunals, with which I have already had discussions, and we shall find the best procedure to put into regulations eventually. Some criticism of these ideas has naturally been put forward. The criticism has been focused mainly on what is


thought of as the loss of the objector's right to be heard. In this connection I emphasise again that there will already have been ample opportunity for public participation.
It is a prerequisite of the procedure under this Bill that the public participation shall have been very thorough in depth even if perhaps restricted in time. There is no restriction to the right to object to the structure plan, and all objectors will still have their written objections considered. That remains an entrenched right for the individual. The statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consider their objections remains. The duty which we now impose on the Secretary of State, a mandatory duty, is to decide what are the main issues of this structure plan and see that they are thoroughly considered at the examination in public. That means a choice of not only the issues but of the participants as well. This will be difficult and we shall endeavour to provide a procedure at which the Secretary of State's choice, both of issues and of participants, can be questioned and discussed. If we can devise a procedure for discussion of the agenda first without causing too much delay or making it a cumbersome procedure, we shall have achieved the aim of this part of the Bill.
Again, those points in particular will be the subject of further discussions with all the interested organisations—the local authority associations, the professional bodies, and the Council on Tribunals. Provision has alrady been made in the Bill for ensuring that examinations are subject to the general oversight of the Council.
I hope that the House will forgive me for spending a little time on this matter. I can move fairly rapidly over the rest of the Bill. Going back from Clause 3 to Clauses 1 and 2, these deal merely with the mechanics of structure planning. As we left the 1968 Act, we had directed each local planning authority to prepare a structure plan. Some of them have wished to prepare the plan in conjunction with their neighbours and, by law, if they did so they could go on with their surveys over a wider area—South Hampshire, for example—but when they came to present that structure plan to the Secretary of State they had to take a pair

of scissors and cut it up, which is just nonsense. So in the Bill we are providing that the local planning authorities can join together to make a structure plan over any area which is convenient. That is not mandatory. It is purely legalising a voluntary arrangement between local planning authorities. The Bill also provides that, if they change their minds at any time during that process, they can come out of the joint process and prepare their own plan, and whatever has been done in the joint process can be used in preparing any structure plan they choose to do on their own.
The other point on structure plans relates to London, and Clause 4 and Schedule I are important provisions for streamlining the planning system of Greater London. Existing legislation under the 1968 Act provides for the Greater London Council to prepare a structure plan, and each of the London boroughs to prepare structure plans—some 33 plans. Looking at the inquiry which is now proceeding into the Greater London development plan, the mind boggles at the time it might take not only to complete that inquiry but then possibly to have 33 more of these inquiries throughout the London boroughs.
In the Bill we are seeking to say that once we have got the Greater London structure plan, the London boroughs can go straight to the stage of preparing their local plans. This is not demoting them in any way; rather, it is promoting them, because they can prepare those local plans for the whole of the area if they choose, or for part of it, and they do not have to bring a local plan to the Secretary of State for approval. So they can get on with the job right away once they can fit their local plans into the Greater London Development plan. Again, these provisions will also enable the London boroughs to prepare such joint local plans as they consider appropriate.
I come now to the third part of the Bill, relating to office development control. Clauses 5 and 6 relate to the extension of the present powers in respect of office control beyond August of this year. The area of control has been successively reduced since 1969. The control itself dates back to 1965, and at present it is applied only to the South-East planning region and for developments over


10,000 square feet. When control was first introduced, it was seen by its authors as a temporary measure to control what was believed to be excessive office employment growth in London. Its life span was seven years. This means that, unless provision is made for continuance of its powers, it will lapse on 5th August of this year. Some hon. Members will doubtless say, "Good riddance", but there is still a purpose in it. The Government have carefully considered what they should do about office control. Few controls are without their enemies and the very powerful voices which have been raised for the abolition of these types of control have been raised on the grounds—to some extent, justified—that they have led only to a shortage of office accommodation in central London, with the result that they have contributed to a quite unprecedented rise in rents.
I have said that there is some justification of that criticism of the controls. The Government are not keen on interfering with the normal operations of commercial and professional development and would like to remove this additional irksome step in the planning process and leave it, perhaps, entirely to the planning process in due course. We have concluded that an intelligent use can be made of the control for a limited period to further the objectives of the Strategic Plan for the South-East.
Hon. Members will remember that in October of last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's decision to accept the main recommendations of the Strategic Plan for the South-East. We think that we can mould this control into a positive form. We propose in future to use the O.D.P. system positively in London so that we can meet on good planning lines the demand for office accommodation in London. There should be no restriction on the provision of modern office space in London to replace obsolete or outworn premises or to satisfy the requirements of businesses which can function properly only from London.
More than that, there needs to be a supply of new and modernised space available for developing concerns and to take advantage of new stimuli such as the entry into Europe, because we are seeing the demand even now at this early

stage, in the City of London particularly—it may be a prestige demand, but it is there—from Europe.
In the near future a balanced policy of office development for London and for the region as a whole can be best brought about by the operation, principally by the local planning authorities themselves, of the new system of development planning of which I have spoken earlier.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is something of the chicken and the egg analogy in this? He knows from his experience that developers who want to develop in a city generally go in the first place to the local authority to get general planning agreement. Many town halls are now telling such intending developers, "Until you get an office development permit we cannot talk to you". Can he cut those lines?

Mr. Page: I was coming to that. There must be more co-operation between the O.D.P. system and planning, eventually to lead, I hope, to the abolition of the system and the building of it into the planning system entirely, but I do not think that the planning system is quite ready for it yet. When we get the structure plans and the local plans I am sure that we can bring the O.D.P. system into the planning system. In the meantime, we see a value in the more direct powers of control that we have under the O.D.P. system. Therefore, we propose in Clause 5(1) that the existing power should be extended for a further five years, but because we are determined not to keep the control a moment longer than is necessary we have included provisions to bring it to an end by Order in Council before 1977. I say again that in its administration we will ensure that it is an aid and not a hindrance to commercial development.
I come finally on what I call "part 4" to demolition in conservation areas. Section 1 of the Civic Amenities Act, 1967, requires local planning authorities to determine which parts of their area or areas
are areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance
and to designate such areas as conservation areas.
More than 1,500 of those areas have already been designated in England. They will normally include some buildings which are of special architectural or historic interest and which can be statutorily listed as such, with all the protection which listing as of architectural or historic value gives them. They will also include buildings which, although they can contribute to the character of the conservation area, are not such as could be listed. For example, a fine row of Victorian villas built around the middle of the last century gives a character to that conservation area, yet one would not dream of listing that row of villas as of great architectural or historic value. Anyone who knocks down the row of villas destroys the whole character of the conservation area; yet at present that can be done.
The Bill seeks to put restrictions on that, treating the demolition of a building of that sort in the same way as something which requires listed building consent would be treated. In future, if the House accepts the provisions of the Bill, conservation areas as they are designated will include certain areas—it may be a block; it may be a terrace—which the local planning authority thinks are of such a character that they should be protected from demolition and the planning authority will issue directions to that effect. Those directions will not be effective until confirmed by the Secretary of State, except in cases of emergency, when they will become effective immediately but will lapse unless confirmed by the Secretary of State within six months.
Once a direction becomes effective in respect of a building it will not be possible lawfully to demolish it without the consent of the local planning authority or the Secretary of State, and the normal rights of appeal will apply.
I should with some temerity mention that the provisions apply also to Scotland in a separate Clause—Clause 8—and in Schedule 3. It is necessary to do it in that way because of slight variations in the legislation in Scotland and because of reference to Acts not yet consolidated.
I have dealt, perhaps sketchily, with the four parts of the Bill. I said at the beginning that we have collected these miscellaneous items together in the Bill. They are urgent. There are no doubt

many other matters in planning which it is desirable should be dealt with and which we might have included in the Bill, but they might have been controversial. We think that these four points are so important and so urgent to the proper administration of both development planning and planning control that we have collected them together in the Bill, and I hope that the House will accept them and give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: The whole House will want me to congratulate the Minister on a very clear exposition, which those who do not normally earn their living in planning or are not specialists in planning will have understood as well as the rest of us. If I may add a personal congratulation I thought it was a tour de force, especially as the hon. Gentleman was engaged in Committee the whole of yesterday on one of the most complicated Bills in the history of Parliament.

Mr. Graham Page: So was the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Silkin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me a little churlish if I start with one complaint. On 18th October, on Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], which was a consolidation Measure, I told the Solicitor-General, who was in charge of the Second Reading:
I should be grateful if we could be told how the Government propose to deal with any amending legislation and whether they have any in mind at the moment.
He said in reply:
The right hon. Member asked how we would proceed with any further amendment of this legislation, when and if we were to wish to do so. I am not in a position to say on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislation may or may not be in prospect—save only to say that there must never have been a time in the last 25 years when there have not been legislative proposals about town and country planning in prospect somewhere, because a constant stream of suggestions are made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 506–8.]
So far so good, but let us look at the dates again. On 18th October we had the Second Reading of that Bill and on 3rd November, which was within three weeks, the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill. We wonder why it


was necessary to hasten the consolidation Measure ahead of this Amendment Bill. Was it really necessary? The Government having decided to consolidate planning law—and most of those who practise this welcome it and regard it as very desirable—to come along with a new series of amendments almost immediately is, as I think Sir Desmond Heap pointed out in the Journal of Planning Law, rather like the situation when one shuts one door and another closes. I hope that we can do something to see that that does not recur. I believe it to be totally unnecessary. But I hope that the Minister will not take that personally, except perhaps as a guide to the future.
There are really four new provisions in the Bill, and perhaps another minor one. The minor one is contained in Clauses 1 and 2, the provision for general surveys, reports and structure plans and, if necessary, their withdrawal. I only mention it because my noble Friend Lord Greenwood, who was the architect of the 1968 Act, questioned in another place whether it was necessary. He felt that there could have been something like an avoidance-of-doubt Clause in the Bill. It may not have been necessary. His argument was that authorities had been perfectly able to combine in the past. But whether or not it was necessary, it is probably desirable to state it explicitly and I do not see that it can do much harm.
I turn to the question of the structure plan and the local plan. One must never draw an analogy too far, but the provision is almost like a White Paper as regards the structure plan and committee procedure as regards the local plan. I fully appreciate that changes had to be made, because the Minister was involved in far too much detail. Public inquiries tended to drag on and on. We have the awful warning of the Greater London Development Plan as a monument to how long they can go on. Perhaps I may differ with my noble Friend my father in saying that it may well be that development plans in the old sense were causing considerable time-lags. The Minister referred to matters still being considered 10 years afterwards. I could probably find examples of their being considered 20 years after. The provision is an evolution and we must understand it.
In general, the new proposals have been very much welcomed, particularly among my hon. Friends, on the basis that the Minister can select the key areas for examination. Not everyone is quite so convinced that time will be saved. There are some arguments; the National Federation of Building Trades Employers has some reservations, expressed in a note which it has circulated. Its reservations appear to be slightly mutually contradictory though that does not necessarily disqualify them. I understand that its argument is that the right to deny locus standi to all and sundry in structure plan inquiries may lengthen the local plan inquiries. We can see the force of that. It also says that structure plan inquiries are
likely to be carefully rehearsed arguments between counsel appearing for powerful interested parties
and that that would seem to lengthen the discussions about the structure plan.
One thing is certain: that we do not know. We shall just have to see how the provision works out, but for that reason it will need to be watched very carefully. I hope that the Minister will keep it constantly under review, because the aim is one that we are all seeking to achieve. However, we may not have the best possible answer. I am not being critical of the Minister's solution. I think that it probably is right, but we tend as the years go by to approach all matters concerned with the speeding-up of planning with a certain amount of caution. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is aware that it will have to be watched very carefully.
There is no doubt that Clause 4, dealing with London, will help enormously in the saving of time. On previous form, the grand show in London, the G.L.D.P., looked like beating "The Mousetrap" as the longest-running show in London. The removal of the horrifying prospect of a further 33 structure plans is something which all of us can only view with considerable relief.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned office development control. I do not know what all the fuss is about. The hon. Gentleman's proposal is neither so laissez-faire as some of my hon. Friends may think nor so wildly revolutionary as some of the hon. Gentleman's hon.
Friends may think. It is a wait-and-see policy—I nearly said a standstill policy. Clearly, something must be done this year, and the Minister has said "We shall give ourselves the right to go on for another five years if we want, but we could give it up after five days if we wanted to". So he is not committed to anything at this point.
I was impressed by the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the part the O.D.P. can play in the immediate future in the good planning and development of London. I was not as impressed with his arguments about Europe as perhaps he was, but there are other reasons why I should not have been quite so impressed with them. By the same token, since a large number of American enterprises have also taken up office accommodation in London, we are liable to join the North American Free Trade Area as well.
The final point of the hon. Gentleman's four points concerned buildings in the conservation areas. Here something is being achieved of great value. To say that it is long overdue is to say that neither administration was fully seized, at the moment when it considered conservation generally, with what could happen. I am very glad that what is basically a very necessary assimilation with the control of purely listed buildings has been entered into, but two points need to be considered.
First, as far as I can see there is nothing to prevent an owner from allowing his property to fall into decay, listed or not:
Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive.
It is possible—I do not say that it is generally done—to assist the effect of nature so that a building becomes so difficult of reconstruction that it literally falls to pieces.

Mr. Peter Mills: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. What he says is particularly true of some areas of the South-West, which have many thatched cottages that look very nice but are very expensive to maintain. One of the methods to see that they are rebuilt is to allow them to get into a terrible state of disrepair.

Mr. Silkin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. It is a

matter to which the Minister's mind should be directed and to which there might be relatively easy answers.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Whereas what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, looking simply at the corpus of town planning law, there are other statutory provisions that may be relevant in this context. If people allow their premises to get into disrepair, under other statutory codes they may be liable to pains and penalties.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct with regard to a number of cases but not, alas, every case, as he will appreciate.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. This seems to be developing into a Committee debate. Does not he agree that the real trouble is that the preservation legislation is very largely negative and that positive inducements—probably tax inducements—are the answer to make it worthwhile for people to preserve and enhance the properties we want to see preserved? At present we are far too negative.

Mr. Silkin: I think that in part the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is the answer, but there are other methods to deal with the problem as well. It is a question that we need to examine fairly closely. Fortunately, there is now an ambience of preservation and conservation in the country. There is perhaps a sudden realisation that we have a considerable heritage to preserve and conserve, and that the more we can do about it now the better it will be for our descendants.
Having had a certain amount of agreement from Conservative hon. Members, may I go on to another point on which they may not be quite as unanimous? Why should not demolition of unlisted buildings also be subject to control outside the conservation areas? The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said there are a number of pains and penalties in relation to that but we agree that they do not cover every property, whether in a conservation area or not It is always an easy answer to say, not that the Minister would necessarily say it, "This is not the time or the place. We can deal with that in some other


Bill at some other time", if indeed the hon. Gentleman has any sympathy with the point. I hope that he has. I take heart from the fact that he himself called the Bill almost a miscellaneous provisions Bill, and indeed it is. It consists of a number of different provisions not allied to one another, not linked with one another. Therefore, it would be quite possible to do it.
Although, hopefully, the general effect of the earlier Clauses will be to speed up planning inquiries and cut down the period of blight, which is what we are all after, the effect of the Bill itself is complex and somewhat unpredictable. The Town and Country Planning Association is very concerned about the administrative and functional problems that will be created by the simultaneous passage of this Bill and the Local Government Bill. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), who is the Chairman of the Town and Country Planning Association will have something to say on this matter, should be catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. For myself, I wonder whether the Government have given proper consideration to what may happen should the Local Government Bill become law and the number of planning authorities thereby increase from 140 to about 420.
On a number of occasions I have asked the Minister whether he is confident that sufficient qualified staff are available to deal with local plans. I wish I could be as confident as he has sometimes appeared to be. What I regard as a terrible difficulty will be aggravated, not lessened, by the Bill. It is no good setting up totally new procedures if the qualified staff to deal with the local plans are simply not there. At the risk of otiose repetition on my part, I should like once more to be reassured that the Minister is aware of the problem and feels that it is not as grievous as I have said.
In general, we on this side of the House are sympathetic with the aims of the Bill. Naturally, we do not propose to divide against it. I have raised a number of points, and hon. Members on both sides will raise other points. For that reason the Committee stage will probably be a long and searching one. If at the end of that a really good Bill emerges, it can

only do good in the general history of our planning law.

7.56 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: When I first looked at the Bill, ranking the provisions for the joint survey with the general provisions of structure plans, I concluded that, like all Gaul, it was divided into three parts. I respectfully associate myself with the compliment paid by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development on the lucidity and precision with which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. With a characteristically conscientious refinement of sub-division, my hon. Friend made it four parts. The right hon. Gentleman, yielding to the natural and irresistible urge of Oppositions to go one better, extended it to five parts. I will not enter into any further mathematical calculations, but will confine my observations to that part which my hon. Friend classified as the most important.
I do not propose to comment on the provisions relating to the office development permits, nor yet on conservation areas. This is not because they are not important—obviously they are. Indeed, the provision to extend beyond the initial seven years of the Control of Offices Act the office development permit system, although not controversial in this House, may to some extent be controversial outside it. The provision of Clause 7 extending some protection against the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas should, I hope, be non-controversial everywhere. It will at any rate be sure of a cordial welcome from those concerned with the visual aesthetics of environment.
I want to deal with the provisions making changes in the planning procedures. This matter goes to the heart of town and country planning. The central provision is Clause 3, which substitutes new procedures in the structure plans for those contained in Section 9 of the Act of 1971, provisions which are better known to most of us in their pre-consolidated form as Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. The 1968 Act provisions contained in the case of structure plans a new device in town planning at the time, the traditional procedure of the right


of objection and public inquiry of a quasi-judicial nature, long familiar under the 1962 Act and indeed the 1947 Act before that.
Clause 3 retains a duty to consider the relevant objections and to hold a form of public examination into material matters, but gives the Secretary of State a wider discretion. This is the fundamental change which transforms the procedure from its traditionally forensic character to a deliberative character, transforms it from the quasi-lis, to use the jargon, to the seminar.
The question which those interested in town planning have to ask is: is this change an improvement: is it worth trying? We start from the position that there are no planning procedures as yet universally established and necessarily accepted as optimum procedures. Most modern societies have their problems of land use and planning, but their methods of dealing with them differ. In the United States these problems are resolved by a mixture of public relations exercises and judicial decision. In this country we seek to resolve them by a mixture of quasi-judicial consideration and executive action. If we have not as yet arrived at a perfect solution, that is not unexpected, reflecting as it does the difficulties of the matter which are inherent in the nature of town planning, because all town planning is in essence an attempted reconciliation of conflicting considerations.
If must be over 20 years since in cross-examination of Lord Holford—Professor Holford as he then was—I put to him the definition of town planning as being an effort to achieve the highest common factor of what is both economically practicable and aesthetically and socially desirable. He was good enough to say that it was an admirable definition, but of course it masks in a sense the real difficulty, which is what is meant by "socially desirable". I venture to suggest that it means not only reaching the right results but reaching them by the right methods, that is to say, methods acceptable in a democratic society and in a reasonable time. This introduces further conflict, the conflict between a full opportunity for participation and representation on the one hand and the necessity for speed on the other. That, like most of the

more difficult conflicts in life, is a conflict not of a bad thing against a good thing but of two things each good in themselves.
Public participation is a matter of the first importance and one which has been widely canvassed. It is the subject of anxious debate, not only in this country. In July I had the privilege of addressing, together with Judge Kaufman of the Federal Court of Appeal, those sections of the American Bar Association then visiting this country on the question of public participation in these matters. A little later, my hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman and I met at a stimulating weekend conference of the London School of Economics on these same matters at Oxford. It is a very good sign that there is this broad-based and wide-ranging interest in the subject of public participation in planning, and I am sure it will continue.
I come to the other possibly conflicting consideration and that is the time factor, which also is very important. If reasonable expedition in planning processes is not achieved, there is the clear danger that, for all the expenditure of time and energy in giving everybody their say, the right result will not in the end be achieved. What will be achieved is a result which might have looked right in earlier circumstances but has been overtaken by events.
Everyone concerned with town and country planning knows how great is the danger that plans, be they development plans, structure plans or regional strategies, could be out-dated in most respects by the time they reach the end of their long Odyssey and secure formal approval. This danger is as old as the 1947 Act. Development plans under that Act were delayed, not only by democratic and bureaucratic processes, but by the sheer slog of chronicling the existing and permitted land use. When those plans finally staggered or stumbled to approval it was found that the 1961 census had invalidated most of the underlying population estimates on which they were based. The statistics are somewhat alarming—seven years, I believe, for the original development plans to be prepared and submitted, and another eight years for the completion of the approvals. That is looking up the train in last year's Bradshaw with a vengeance.
Such delays inevitably derogate from the purpose and standing of planning, and make it understandably unpopular with the ordinary property-owning citizen who is not concerned with the philosophy of planning but is uneasily and sometimes painfully aware that planning delays mean protracted blight and financial loss.
Here we see what appears to be an irony but is in fact a logical outcome of the 1968 Act, which introduced welcome improvements into planning procedures but at the same time increased the possibility of delay. The basic concept of separating the formulation of strategic planning from its detailed application was a sensible one but, in so far as it necessarily involved two plans—the strategic and the local—instead of one development plan, it meant that more time was required in the planning processes, in that it duplicated the opportunity for objection and inquiry.
The main innovation and the great advance of the 1968 Act was its conscious effort to extend public participation by providing the right to participate in decision-making rather than participation only at the stage of comments on plans already put forward which, if not technically res judicata may pardonably be thought in practice difficult to upset and reverse. Along with this valuable new right of participation, the 1968 Act kept the old form of objection and inquiry. In other words, it poured new wine into old bottles.
The philosophy behind the changes which we are asked to approve today is to maintain public participation but to create a pattern more meaningful and less time-consuming. In that it is surely to be commended. It may not in all respects turn out to be the right answer. Certainly, it is unlikely to be the final solution, but, after nearly 40 years in the world of planning, I do not expect finality, I only hope for advance.
There is an augury of success in that the solutions have been fashioned to meet the situation and the problems as experience has defined them. Those who have some expertise or distinctive contribution can make their contribution in the preparation of the structure plan. For such people and such purposes the seminar type of examination proposed in Clause 3(b) may well be the most suitable, more so than the traditional procedure by

quasi-lis. For individual citizens the desire for public participation is mainly for specific, local and individual rather than general, regional and social. They are less interested in the formulation of structure plans and regional strategies than in local plans and probably they are most interested in the rights of individuals affected by specified planning applications.
Indeed, the most popular form of participation which the Government could give would probably be to grant a right of representation or participation at the application stage instead of only, as now, on an inquiry into a refusal of planning permission. In current practice if a permission is granted there is no right of representation for the aggrieved adjacent resident or owner or other interested person. From my experience in constituency representation that is the subject on which most people would like some greater right of participation in the planning processes.
The proposals mark an advance, not a revolutionary one but radical in their own way. Success is never certain in the evolution of planning procedures as experience shows, but I feel that we can view the prospects of the success of these new provisions at any rate with sober confidence, made the more probable because the matter is in the hands of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development whose extensive knowledge, long experience and indefatigable industry in planning matters have been known to me and most of us over the years and which I am happy to salute today.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: We have recently had a number of large and complicated Bils and it is a pleasant change to get a small, complicated Bill. I am grateful to the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silk in) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for their clear exposition of a subject upon which I confess to having a limited knowledge. Four years ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman followed me when I made my maiden speech and made some kind remarks. I can only say that if ever I make the kind of speech that he makes I will be more than happy.
In the period before the 1947 Town Planning Act a great many of us were enthusiastic about new concept of town planning. Now some of us are worried that town planning legislation has multiplied and is getting too complicated. Nowadays we have two sets of objections and two sets of inquiries where formerly there was one. I am not sure whether people are not becoming a little scared of town planning and whether our legislation is not making public participation less likely rather than more likely. If our attendance tonight is anything to go by then it has made it less likely.
The public tend to participate later, often when it is too late, and the public participation we have seen, such as sitting down in the middle of a motorway, should make us pause to consider whether, even at the early stages of dealing with structure plans we could not get more participation than we do. I know that it is difficult. I have tried in extremely small areas which might have become clearance areas to get people to form community councils to talk to the planning officer about the redevelopment of the area. I realise that it is an extremely difficult thing to do, and to do it at structure plan stage is even more difficult.
Manchester has done a great deal through exhibitions, getting people interested and asking for their comments. Much more needs to be done. One example of how this has worked concerned some cottages in a heavily industrialised area which have now been listed as historic buildings. They are only 200 years old, and in some of our conservation areas this would be a mere nothing. These are the only cottages we have that are 200 years old. It was as a result of exhibitions and public participation that the cottages were listed and saved from demolition.
One of the problems about participation, especially with redevelopment, is that people living in the area at the time the redevelopment is planned will not be the people who will live in the new development. Many planning officers are taking participation much more seriously than before. Public participation starts with enthusiastic officers backed by enthusiastic councillors, and we do not

always get that combination. There are some who regard this as something of a closed shop.
There was provision in the 1962 Act for the co-option of members of the public to planning committees but little seems to have been done. The Skeffington Committee frowned on having representatives of local organisations on planning committees but thought that, where a local area was being discussed, even at the formative stage of the structure plan, people from that area, or with interests in the area, might well be co-opted on to planning committees for a temporary period.
Can Parliament help with this participation? There is no doubt that if publicity is to be brought to bear on a planning situation Parliament is much more capable of providing that publicity than the county councils. Too often the county council headquarters, 30 or 40 miles away, is more remote than Parliament. If the matter is discussed in Parliament, even after 10 o'clock at night, it would help to bring publicity to the issue.
Clause 1 mentions joint structure plans, but in the new metropolitan areas there may well be need for joint local plans. At present it often happens that a local authority provides a park near to the edge of its boundary and the park is used more by people on the other side of the boundary than by those within the boundary. There may be a possibility of joint local plans. We are repeatedly concerned about the need to conserve beautiful developments of the past. I have my doubt whether we are creating conservation areas for the future.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful for the opportunity of taking part in the debate because as an ordinary constituency Member I find that planning problems crop up more frequently than any other problems which come to me. I also find that this is an area in which I can have least effect. Out of the dozens of cases I have been concerned with I have won only about twice. There are real problems here. Another reason why I am grateful for this opportunity to speak is because the industry which I seek to represent and which I love very much, agriculture, is so much affected by town and country planning.
The bulk of the land taken for other users comes from agriculture. It is a sobering thought that every week 1,100 acres of good farm land are taken away for other purposes such as roads, hospitals, schools and the building of all the other things which the community needs. While this is necessary, it is very important to see and to plan that we do not use good agricultural land where we could use poorer land. To think of 1,100 acres a week disappearing! After all, we do not make land. Perhaps we may in the future, with the Wash and other barrages. The Dutch are more on the ball on this than we are. However, it is important that the agriculture industry should be consulted all along the way because planning affects us probably more than it affects any other industry.
I welcome the joint survey and joint structure plan provisions. This proposal is right and proper and practical. We in the South-West are particularly concerned about this, because planning authorities should work together to consider not just the area of one planning authority alone but the needs of a much wider area, and they should form large joint structure plans.
The reason I say this is that unless the planning authorities in the South-West get together and think in terms of the South-West, we in that part of the country will be in considerable difficulty, particularly since we are to have a new motorway in our area, with all the planning which will have to be done for meeting the needs of tourists. We shall have to think of such mundane things as toilets on the motorway and other roads, and of all the facilities which will have to be provided for the tourists as they pour into the South-West. After all, it is a day trip now—or it will be—from Birmingham to Dartmoor, Exmoor, Bodmin and so on: down and back in a day. All this will require very careful planning. I do not think that just one small planning authority can think in the terms of what is needed and of what the Bill seeks to do through joint structure plans. I welcome that provision very much.
We on this side of the House have a standing joke amongst ourselves, saying that my hon. Friend the Minister is doing a very good job. I think he is doing a very good job, but I think he

must turn his attention and that of his Department to the needs of agriculture, particularly to future planning for such major planning decisions as those for milk factories, because a milk factory affects a very large area. We have had a case just recently when he turned down an application. This is not just a matter for the local planning authority, for a decision such as this affects a very much larger area. I believe that through this Bill mistakes—I go even so far as to say "mistakes"—made in the past can be rectified.
Another important matter is the need for explanations. A planning officer once said to me "Planning is a matter of opinion" and he said that his opinion was so-and-so. It is difficult for people who are making planning applications to understand that, or to accept it for that matter; but they do. It could be made much easier for them if there were fuller and better explanation of a decision. The public, certainly my constituents, have a right to it.
Not only should better explanations of decisions be made but more warning should be given of decisions and of planning. The advertising of them should be explored so as to give people an understanding of what is going on. It is ridiculous to say, "Go to see the plans in your town hall". People just do not do that, but they do read the local papers and they listen to the radio. Far more effort ought to be made to tell people what is going on. After all, they have a right to know about things which will affect their lives and businesses.
My hon Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) made a very good point in discussion when he said that it is important to put up notices of what is going on. If a great sewage farm, a milk factory or a caravan park is planned and decided upon, a large notice on the site of the proposed development should be put up showing what is to take place.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has a great deal of support on this important point? Even a small notice would be of immense help, even in comparatively elementary planning changes such as a proposal to change a front room into a hairdressing saloon. There


should be notices to draw to the attention of the passer-by the change that is to take place.

Mr. Mills: I am sure that is right. This is a miscellaneous Bill, and perhaps the Minister would consider having a Clause to deal with this important point about notification by notice boards or something of that sort. That would be of benefit to the planning authorities and to all concerned, because if proposals are hidden, and then people suddenly discover what is to be done, there can be very serious trouble.
I do not intend to speak long but I want to deal with a brief from the National Farmers' Union. As usual, it is a very good brief. The N.F.U. mentions about this Bill one or two things which it is right I should bring to the attention of the House. It says that the Bill
substitute some vague examination in public and gives the Secretary of State power to determine which issues shall be examined at the examination in public and to decide who shall be allowed to make representations at it.
That seems to me rather dangerous, that the Minister shall have power to say who shall make representations. I would think that in Committee that ought to be looked at very carefully.
The N.F.U. also says:
Unless very much firmer assurances are given by the Government than, in the Union's view, have been previously given this clause constitutes a considerable erosion of the rights of the individual which could have serious consequences for the farming community.
It further states:
The N.F.U. believes that the public inquiry system is still the best safeguard for public participation. If, however, the Government is convinced that the procedure can be streamlined without eroding the rights of the individual it is hoped that it will be able to give a firm assurance to this effect and elaborate on what the nebulous examination in public will mean in practice.
What does that proposal really mean? Will it mean that things will be speeded up? That is another important point.
The N.F.U. also says:
In particular the Union would strongly urge that the Government should make it clear beyond doubt that there will be adequate opportunity for meaningful objection at the structure plan examination stage wherever agriculture is a relevant factor.
I ask the Minister to take this on board very seriously because, as I have said,

agriculture is probably affected by these decisions more than any other industry. Therefore, it is important that agriculture should understand what is at stake and have some say in it.
In this Bill—this is probably out of order, which is why I left it to the last—I have seen no mention of something which I at least feel very strongly about—that local parish councils should have a bigger say in planning, and particularly that they should be notified. I cannot understand why this is such a major obstacle or why the previous Government refused it.

Mr. Graham Page: I can cut this short. In answer to a Written Question only a couple of days ago, I said that we were arranging for all parish councils to have notice of applications.

Mr. Mills: That is marvellous. It confirms what I said in my opening remarks, that the Minister is doing a very good job. I need say no more.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John D. Grant: I cannot recall having spoken before in support of any Government Measure, but I support this Bill. I will address myself entirely to Clause 7, dealing with the power of local authorities to control the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas where they consider that they will preserve the character of the areas. This arises from a situation in my constituency which has been regarded as a test case. In citing it, I can illustrate vividly how necessary this legislation is.
I pursued the matter over a long period and I was promised legislation by the Secretary of State to cover the situation. I am happy to see that this is one of those rare promises which the Government have kept.
The case involves a group of streets in Canonbury known as the Alwynes. Probably the representations which I and other people have made on this issue have influenced the Minister in framing this legislation. The Times and the Sunday Times on Saturday and Sunday both devoted special articles to this case. The architectural correspondent of the Sunday Times suggested that there would be no housing gain in this scheme, and that it would


involve a distinct disruption of the neighbourhood.
The architectural correspondent's first point was the obvious one that they are in a conservation area and that their present unlisted status is a loophole which the Bill is designed to correct. He went on to say:
… well-known architects should surely be prepared to obey a self-denying ordinance, especially in their back yards.
He was referring to Sir Basil Spence, who is the architect for this scheme and who lives nearby. He continued:
I would like to hear just once of an architect publicly refusing a commission because of possible environmental damage. In isolation, it is a perfectly good scheme; the point is that such isolation has long gone from inner London, It must be considered as part of an environmental balance sheet of profit-and-loss—and the time can't be far off when this becomes a statutory requirement for any planning application.
That article highlights the issue of whose profit and loss is under discussion.
It is probably a very clever move to hire such an eminent architect as Sir Basil to design this scheme, but it has certainly not over-awed the residents in the area. They do not think very much of Sir Basil or his plans or of Lord Compton and the Northampton Estate, who are the owners. My postbag has bulged with protests about this scheme. They were pushing at an open door in my case. I have had more letters on this subject than on any other local issue and probably as many as on any national issue in which I have been involved.
Property speculation is involved here, whatever aura of respectability may be given to it in this case. There will be some pretty rich pickings for the speculators if the scheme is allowed to go through. It would be interesting to have a complete breakdown of the estimated costs and sale prices of the long leases proposed for the houses which will be built. I should like an examination of this. Also, since they own the area and will not have to buy the land, I wonder whether this saving will be reflected in the prices or whether purchasers will have to pay the competitive market rate.
Whatever the answer to those questions, it seems clear that many of the local residents will be priced right out of that area of Islington. There cannot be any housing gain to the borough—rather the

reverse, since the new properties are bound to go largely to newcomers, upper-class immigrants, who can afford the inflated prices at which these houses will inevitably be offered; they will be far from the reach of the many thousands of Islington people who are desperately in need of homes.
To return to the conservation aspect, the residents believe that this conservation area should remain intact and whole. So did the G.L.C. Historic Buildings Board. So did the former Islington Council, but it found that it lacked the power to preserve them, and this has been the experience of the present Islington Council. There is no doubt that the present council would like the Minister to call in the Alwynes case for a proper public inquiry. I hope he will do so because there is some doubt that this Bill will be in time to rescue the situation. I hope it will.
I have already referred to my postbag. Every letter I have had has opposed the scheme. I will not read all the letters, but I will mention one or two of the adjectives used by my constituents. They have described this scheme as disastrous, disreputable, destructive, harsh, monotonous, appalling, ruinous, greedy, outrageous on æsthetic and social grounds, and sheer money-making vandalism. Perhaps I should quote a sentence or two:
Too much in London has disappeared under the bulldozer. Please do all in your power to prevent any more vandalism.'
The word "vandalism" has run like a common thread through so many of the letters I have received on the subject. Another letter said:
Can we not tight this, not only for the sake of the Alwynes but for the sake of London?
The Secretary of State originally decided against the Islington Council preservation order. This was a decision taken in June, 1970, and I appreciate the reasons for it. I am not sure whether at that time the Minister had come to grips with environment matters. Perhaps he has done so since. I have been fighting on this issue ever since, as the Minister will know. I am not a conservationist at all costs. It depends what one is conserving, and even Conservatives will agree to that. There are many areas of Islington where the bulldozer is long


overdue and where the vandalism has been the existence of slums which would have been better razed many years ago—and would have been if the landlords had not got in the way.
However, there is no social gain in this case. Quite the contrary. Once the decision is taken, it is irreversible. I hope that the Minister will act directly to save the Alwynes. If he cannot do so directly and immediately, I hope the Bill will become law rapidly. It may just be in the nick of time so that the local authority can use the powers which the Minister has described.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: As an architect, I am tempted to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant), particularly in relation to Sir Basil Spence; but, because of the time element, I shall not do so and I hope that my profession will forgive me.
I welcome this Bill not only as a town planning consultant but also because some small part of it bears great similarity to a Clause in a Private Member's Bill I had the privilege to introduce last Session. This was the Urban and Rural Environment Bill. It passed its Committee stage unamended, but it got no further because of the lack of parliamentary time. Whether it would have passed the Committee stage unamended if hon. Members had not realised it would not reach the Statute Book I do not know, but mention of it gives me the opportunity to pay a small tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for the great help he gave me on that Bill and his criticisms on that and other matters.
I should like particularly to comment on Clauses 7, and 8 relating to Scotland. This applies to the power of local planning authorities to direct that a building in a conservation area should be the subject of permission before demolition and this very much resembles Clause 3 of my Private Member's Bill.
I wish to take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) who pointed out how, despite legislation, so many buildings of historic and architectural interest are being demolished. The Civic Amenities Act

gave the power to local authorities to enter premises with a view to effecting repairs, but that power was rarely implemented simply because the money to do so would have fallen on the rates. Clause 5 of my own modest Bill would have removed this obstacle had it reached the Statute Book.
In Britain, there are no fewer than 1,742 conservation areas, some of them small, others of them comprising the whole of the medieval parts of towns like York and Chester. The total number of buildings represented in those areas, is only a fraction of the total in Britain. Much as I welcome Clauses 7 and 8, I question whether this Bill will be sufficient to deal with the problem that we face.
If I may pose a rhetorical question, how many local planning authorities will see that most of the buildings which should be preserved in their conservation areas will be made subject to the need to have permission before demolition? For some years, our local planning authorities have had the power to put preservation orders on trees. Trees are needed most in our towns and cities, yet, since tree preservation orders first came into being many years ago, in Birmingham only 29 are subject to orders, in Liverpool 45, in Manchester 2, and in Leeds 10.
Does not my hon. Friend think that the Clauses would be better if they were put the other way, so that all buildings in conservation areas automatically needed permission before they were demolished giving local planning authorities the power to make exemptions? Buildings are still coming down. The Americans have a much better sense of proportion, though obviously they are more wealthy. They are prepared to pay a million pounds to have a bridge taken down stone by stone, transported across the Atlantic and across thousands of miles of their continent, and re-assembled stone by stone in the Arizona desert. We shall live to rue the day that we allowed so many of our old buildings to be demolished, and I ask the Government to consider amending Clauses 7 and 8 to remedy the situation.
Perhaps I might suggest in passing that Clause 10 should also be amended. It relates to when Clauses 7 and 8 should take effect. I believe that they should take effect immediately that the Bill goes


on to the Statute Book, instead of having to wait for a month. There is a desperate need for immediate action to be taken.
I wish to raise two further points. The first of them has been touched on already by one or two hon. Members, and it concerns the need for publicity to be given to planning applications. My hon. Friend said recently in reply to a Written Question that he accepted that parish councils that wished to have notice of planning applications relating to land within their parishes should be entitled to it. He went on to say that legislation would be needed to make it a statutory requirement, and that it was not appropriate for any current Bill. We are now considering a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, and I suggest that this might be an opportunity for a short Clause to be inserted for the purpose. For want of better advice, my hon. Friend might adopt Clause 9 of my Urban and Rural Environment Bill, since that would do just this.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that it is important for more notice to be given to members of the public of planning applications in order to remove some of the bitterness which is often felt by people who believe that they have no say about what is to happen in their immediate environment. Again, I commend to my hon. Friend Clause 8 of my Private Member's Bill.
Finally, I should like to touch on a matter of critical importance, particularly in the West Midlands. Recently there have been examples in the West Midlands of harmful substances being put on waste tips. I know that the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) have had instances of this happening in their constituencies within the last week. As a town and country planning consultant, I was quite horrified to learn—I hope that I have the situation right—that at present it is legal to dump prussic acid, better known as cyanide, on rubbish clumps without any need for permission. That is a horrifying state of affairs if it is true. Again, the Bill provides an opportunity to remedy that situation.
I welcome the Bill. I believe that it is a step in the right direction, and I congratulate the Government on introducing it. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay serious attention to the points

which I have raised. If he is able to include them at the appropriate time, in Committee or on Report, I believe that, instead of being a step in the right direction, it could be a great stride forward which would have support from both sides of the House.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I, too join, in welcoming the Bill. I thought the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) about the importance of trying to encourage much wider public interest and understanding in the whole planning sphere was very interesting. He is absolutely right in saying that that is not present at the moment.
It is only when we come to the local plans—the local action plans as they are to be called—where individuals feel themselves directly and personally involved that we are likely to get a wide measure of public participation in the sense of acute anxiety, pressure, and so on. But I do not give up hope that we may succeed in interesting a steadily wide range of people in the longer term strategic and structure plans with which the bill is concerned. I am encouraged in that view partly because of the efforts which are being made today to include this subject in school programmes. It is now understood that planning is not a matter purely for the highly-qualified specialist; it is a matter of direct and real concern for all who are concerned about living standards.
There could be no more important decisions for us to make in common than the kind of priorities we choose for the way that we order our lives and organise the environment in which we live. This is essentially what these strategic and structure plans are about. Therefore, a great deal of our judgment on what success or failure the Bill is likely to achieve is on the question whether it is likely to help forward in any way, even in a modest way, the wider involvement of people in the whole problem.
I repeat, I have some encouraging feelings about this matter, because large numbers of schools are beginning to take up issues and work out projects based not only upon purely local plans, but upon some of these wider longer-term schemes. I am glad that the association with which


I am involved has been helping, with a great deal of interest, to develop some of these projects in schools.
I congratulate the Minister on what he has done to try to encourage wide discussion of his proposals in a range of circles where there is obvious interest in the matter. Some of the consultative papers which his Department has issued have been well worth while and have prompted a lot of useful suggestions and recommendations. Plainly, this is of value.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) that one cannot wholly divorce this Bill from the kind of structure which we are now working to set up which will have to implement a great deal of it. Many of us must inevitably have sincere anxieties on that score. I shall give an example to illustrate the point, though I shall not debate it now, since there are plenty of opportunities to do that, morning, afternoon, and night, on Tuesdays and Thursdays in that continuing performance—I can hardly call it entertainment—which is a feature of our lives here in the House now.
One of the problems to be considered in this connection is that the new metropolitan authorities which will be responsible for preparing structure plans as distinct from local action plans will, in my view and the view of others concerned, cover only a relatively limited area, and there will have to be continuous consultation with outside authorities, consultation which it may be difficult to maintain in a full and effective way. This is but another example of the problem which I have seen all along, that is, the need for a wider authority than is proposed in the Local Government Bill for these major long-term strategic and structure plans.
I come now to some of the details. Those of us who have had some experience of these matters welcome the attempt to put greater flexibility into the method of holding planning inquiries in the future. If we accept that representations should be made and discussions take place about the value of different alternative proposals for the long-term development of an area, how do we ensure that the various points of view can be expressed freely and effectively? I do not believe that it can be done if we rely upon a purely legal framework for this

type of inquiry. I should much rather see—I think that this is in the Minister's mind—something more like an informal conference rather than the old type of legalistic inquiry.
The Town and Country Planning Association has had some experience of this problem. The Greater London Plan as presented, for example, offered an opportunity—I am not complaining about what was done—for this kind of representation. We did not want to make objections as such in the narrow purely legalistic sense, but we wanted to challenge certain basic principles of that plan and open up ideas about other ways in which objectives could be achieved.
We had the help and goodwill of many people who willingly gave of their time to put forward fresh ideas which we believe to be of importance for future discussion and the development of something that will be of value to all the citizens of London. But, inevitably, at that state at any rate, the proceeding was largely on a legalistic basis, with cross examination, no doubt very efficiently and effectively carried on, but not likely to encourage the more informal presentation of fresh ideas that we want.
I hope that we shall get precisely that in the future. I hope that we shall get this more relaxed and somewhat more informal but nevertheless organised, presentation of alternative views. I do not see how one can do it other than by the Minister having the power to select a limited number of issues which can be discussed in that way. I can see the difficulty, I realise the criticism that may arise, but I do not see how else it can be done.
I hope that if a number of issues are to be selected and if, as one hon. Member said, there is to be selection of those who are to appear, the issues presented will be put forward in the form of possible alternatives so that the matter does not appear to be finalised, or in any way near a final position. I hope that there will be the opportunity of some argument and discussion across the table as it were of broad alternatives which may be put before those who attend.
If that is done, we may be surprised to find that rather more people are willing to come in and take part in that kind of inquiry, or conference as I would


rather call it, than perhaps is the case now. I hope that that will prove to be so. I believe that even if that is not the case initially, it will prove to be later on as people get accustomed to the new type of inquiry or conference. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity, at the end of this short debate, of saying something more in amplification of what he said about this procedure, but I think that I am interpreting correctly the broad lines of what it is hoped to achieve.
If I am correct, I believe that instead of this whole area of presentation of broad plans being regarded by elected councillors and by everybody else as a restricted area for the professional planner, it will be seen to be an area of great importance for the general public as well, and one in which the general public and organisations representing various points of view have every right of expression; just as much, if not more right of expression than when it comes to the much more detailed local plans to which we are accustomed now.
I welcome the Bill. I share with my right hon. Friend the view that this is by no means an unimportant Measure, and one that will require some examination in detail. There are a number of matters that we shall wish to raise in Committee. I welcome it as a step forward in participation in a real sense in our future planning processes. I am sure that such a step forward was in the mind of our late colleague, Arthur Skeffington, whose report prompted a good deal of the further consideration that this matter has received.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I appeal to the Minister to consider a major omission from the Bill. I refer to the need to provide additional safeguards for individual owner-occupiers when planning applications are being considered.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) spoke of the more relaxed approach that we are having to planning consultation and the consideration of new schemes. I am afraid that at present in the minds of many people exactly the reverse is happening. More people are feeling helpless and remote when planning applications are being

discussed, not only at county level but even in smaller units. The pace is going so fast that they feel that whatever they say or do they will not be able to make any real impression.
One reason for the public having this feeling is the small amount of publicity that is given in advance of when and where applications will apply and be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) hit the nail on the head when he spoke of the need for additional publicity when announcing applications for planning.
This publicity must occur not just through local newspapers, which can be easily missed. My local newspapers handle these matters well, but there are invariably a large number of details printed on each occasion and they can easily be missed by people whose areas will be affected.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will go a stage further and think in terms of making it compulsory for the local planning authority to inform established residents' organisations and similar bodies of forthcoming applications, and also inform residents who might be directly affected if the planning applications are granted.
An important residents' and property-owners' association in my constituency has written to me saying:
The Association has on many occasions objected to applications for outline planning permission and has often been very dissatisfied with the decisions reached by the Local Planning Authority. We consider it wrong that the applicant should have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State against a refusal of permission by the Planning Authority, whereas those objecting to the granting of permission have no such right.
I appreciate the difficulties which local planning committees face. I served on one in the London area for a number of years. But the fact remains that one can get areas of friction between bodies of local residents and their local planning authorities because they feel that they have not had a real opportunity of their case being heard by people who look at it from an entirely independent point of view.
Some of the new planning authorities which will come into operation in 1973 will be even more remote from the people they are affecting than the present ones, particularly when we have, in terms of


major roads, planning applications concerned with areas 220 ft. on each side of those roads. There will be many small individual applications, and it is bound to be feared that those who will discuss these matters will lose touch with the people they are affecting. My hon. Friend the Minister may try to argue that local planning authorities can revoke outline planning permission. But in practice they are very reluctant to do so because it can be extremely costly. Therefore, they tend to stick to the original decision. But if it was done on the basis that the outline planning grant was only outline planning grant, and that there could be no question of compensation if for some reason that was withdrawn at a later date, we could get over that problem.
No planning authority is infallible in its wisdom. Not even this House would claim that. We have to remember that for many individuals the one major asset they ever acquire is the house in which they live. At times that can be placed at risk.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Up to the last 30 seconds I have been following my hon. Friend's argument not only with interest but with acquiescence. Indeed, his first point rather echoed a point I made earlier. On his suggestion about revocation of outline planning permission, without compensation, would he not agree that this would create a good deal of difficulty and possibly injustice? It has been clear law ever since the case of Hamilton and the West Sussex County Council that only the reserve matters can be varied without compensation when an outline permission is granted. If it were to be revoked without compensation it would, would it not, impose a good deal of injustice on those developers who, on the faith of the outline permission, had expended time and money? Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to illustrate that particular facet of his very interesting argument.

Mr. Bowden: I appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's point. I think that the reason he has taken that view is that I have not been able to explain to the House in any great detail what was on my mind. It was only that if the objectors were to have the same right

as the applicants to appeal against the decision of the local planning authority, during that period of time in which that appeal may be registered, say, 28 days, and the time it is heard, it would be fair enough that no compensation should be paid. This would then become a standing risk that all applying for outline planning permission would have to face. But at present it is one-sided, because the applicant can appeal against the local planning authority's decision, but the objectors can not. Furthermore, many applicants are powerful bodies, powerful companies with large resources. They can afford, quite rightly, to employ able and distinguished consultants, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman), and can present a foreful and effective case which often will not give the same chance to the individual objector who may be the owner-occupier whose one and only asset is seriously threatened.
This is a chance for the Government to add to the Bill on the lines I have suggested, to show their concern for ordinary citizens. To quote a phrase anything but original: justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: During the debate it has been of considerable interest to note the number of hon. Members who have come in and out of the Chamber who are members of the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill and who therefore share a positive interest in what we are discussing. Some of us are tempted tonight to remove ourselves from a detailed examination purely because of the number of hours we are spending currently examining line by line the Government's proposals in that Bill.
This Bill enables us to speak more generally about its objectives, the first of which is to tackle the problem of structure planning, the second of which deals with inquiries and objections related thereto, the third of which is the extension of time for office building and the fourth of which is the very important matter of the control of demolition in conservation areas.
I greatly doubt whether the proposed scheme will succeed in solving our great social problem. When I was a member


of a municipal planning authority I tried hard to reconcile the interests of the authority with those of the general public which was affected by the authority's intentions. Since coming to Parliament I have found that parliamentary intentions are often confounded in practice when expressed in an Act. What authorities do, perhaps unwittingly, is often different from what the House intended, and that causes greater confusion amongst the public.
For this reason, and because the Local Government Bill is now in Standing Committee, this Bill may have been introduced at the wrong time. To introduce this Bill at a time when the Standing Committee is considering a considerable number of Amendments to the Local Government Bill is to put the cart before the horse.
In one respect the Bill takes a step backwards, not forwards. Under previous legislation one of the Minister's obligations when structure plans were submitted to him was to require that a consideration be made of objections to structure plans and to afford a hearing to the objectors. This is to be substituted by Clause 3(7):
On considering a structure plan the Secretary of State may consult with, or consider the views of, any local planning authority or other person, but shall not be under any obligation to do so.
The machinery for public inquiry will to some extent protect objectors, but beyond that stage what will be the effect of the Minister's new rôle in that he is not obliged to receive objections?
It has rightly been said that people generally are interested in how something specific affects them, how a plan in a local area affects them. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) dealt with that with special care. He has considerable knowledge and many years' experience—I think he mentioned 40—and his judgment on these matters is always respected in the House. However, he added that a corollary was that the same personal interest was not involved in regional planning or structural plans at a regional level. I think that on reflection he will agree that that is not totally correct. It is a relative matter. There is no means to measure the extent of the interest. But I assure the right hon. and learned

Gentleman that during our consideration of the Local Government Bill many of us have been surprised at the amount of interest in structural planning on both a regional and a national basis.
One of the great features of this country is the totality of our national character as distinct from a definition of the State. Over many centuries the people have evolved into all manner of groups concerned with liberty, freedom, conservation, building, architecture, communications and the like. Through that grand design which I have described as the national character, immense, positive criticism of structural plans is made in a way which, quite different from the local expression, is nevertheless powerful.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind reference to my speech and to me. What I intended to say was that individual citizens were less interested in the structure planning than in its more detailed manifestations. I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman, of course, that groups, associations, amenity societies and other interests which are citizens in the aggregate are, fortunately, very interested in structure planning. But I think that their interests and participation may be better served in the examination form now suggested that the old forensic form of inquiry. I do not think there is anything between the hon. Gentleman and myself—at least, I hope not.

Mr. Leadbitter: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Our difference is merely one of emphasis. We are talking in relative terms of the way in which individuals view one aspect of planning as against another. I draw attention to the relative difference to try to deal with the point I want to bring before the House. With a different form of examining structural proposals and, in addition to the individual interest on the parochial or local scene, the more powerful and often more expressive interest through the organisations created by individuals in so many varied fields, we are bound to suggest that perhaps the Bill falls short of achieving the machinery that is desirable if structural proposals are to be examined at the right point in such a way that objections and people's concern can be felt effectively.
In other words, those of us who have worked in Parliament, especially on


Standing Committees of various kinds, those of us with legal, planning or local government experience, feel that one of our great dilemmas is how best to solve the conflict of the planning process and the social interest expressed by people who are not directly involved in the planning proposals. We are often concerned in local government in joint schemes with other local authorities, or with projects in the larger areas of water boards. For example, we are anxious to provide amenities in the Lake District and the like. We often find that the decision has been made at a point of no return and that the objection part of the process becomes ineffective.
There is a need for a comprehensive study, since the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, was a consolidating Act and these amendments have come up only a short time later. There is genuine concern in the Department about the need to initiate a study to discover how the conflicting interests in planning can be reconciled and objections made more effective.
I turn from the generality of that larger problem of structural planning to planning proposals at local authority level. It has been said that when a local planning proposal is made it would be nice if a notice could be put up to say that this or that is being done. In Parliament and local government there are some of the best people in the country, who are dedicated to pursuing the interests of the country, but in Parliament and local government there has always been a confounding element in how best to convey to the general public what they want to do and how and when to do it. To put up notices is not sufficient.
I hope the Minister will take into account our debates on the Local Government Bill, in which we discussed the need to build up neighbourhood councils and to bring the neighbourhood into our local authority structure. The local authority would then be able to examine the interests of the neighbourhood and, if it had a statutory right to know of the planning proposals of the higher local authority, it would be able to bring to the attention of the people the likely consequences of those proposals.

Mr. John Silkin: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point, on which my mind

has been exercised for some time. Does he agree that the real answer is not only the establishment of neighbourhood communities, community councils, but also the provision of proper technical assistance to them, so that they may fully understand what otherwise begins to look like an ancient and forgotten script?

Mr. Leadbitter: I agree with my right hon. Friend. No machinery should be set up unless consideration has been given to the type of technical know-how that is required to make it effective.
Another matter on which local government can be criticised is the propensity of local planning authorities with plenary powers to have discussions which are unrecorded in the council minutes. Councils have nothing to lose by making known their discussions on matters affecting the general public. Many local authorities adopt the philosophy of protectionism and think it is better not to let the people know too much. Since Parliament is a barometer of public feeling, I hope it will be felt that problems which have been voiced in Parliament can be discussed in debate outside. The vast majority of councillors and local government officials would have everything to gain from widening opportunities for discussion.
As has been said, there is little controversy on the Bill. It goes in the right direction although it might have been better timed. The direction is not always the most important thing; what matters is how far one can get.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: I start by asking my hon. Friend to amplify his intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on the subject of parish councils. Is he proposing to make this a statutory requirement, or will it be advice to the councils concerned?
I give a qualified welcome to the Bill as a whole and will concentrate my brief remarks on Clauses 3 and 5 as they affect the South-East region. I am sure that Clause 3 is a step in the right direction, but I am doubtful whether it goes far enough. There are three parts to structure plans—preparation, participation, and the inquiry. The Bill shortens only the inquiry part, and I question whether


the Government will be able to hold the line on this when it comes to major representations.
I have taken part in a major participation effort on the third London airport, and I can see that sort of operation coming again. I have been a member of a planning committee for the last nine years, and I am also a member of the London Regional Planning Conference. The Minister will know the representations that have been made to him by the Conference, and he will know of the Press statement issued just before Christmas which says that completion of a full cycle of plans for the region may well be 20 or more years away. This is much too gloomy. The general consensus, in my region at any rate, is that it will take something from seven to ten years on present estimates, that is five to seven years for the structure plan and two to three years for the local plan. In the meantime, planning in the regions is at a halt. The development plans are grossly out of date but still broadly adhered to. An authority tries to tread delicately between the out-of-date development plan on the one hand and the broad-brush strategy of "Strategic Plan for the South-East", which was approved by the Minister last autumn. on the other.
The strategic plan is not a statutory plan and I commend the remarks in another place of Lord Nugent that perhaps the way out of this may be not to have the structure plan as a statutory requirement but simply as a guidance plan enabling an authority to get on quickly with the formation of the local plans which really affect people and with which they are much more concerned. We are dealing with a conflict between participation and efficiency, and in this instance I come down firmly on the side of efficiency.
I was disappointed to hear the Minister's reply to a question at Question Time today about the proposals for the division of the planning function in the Local Government Bill. There just is not the skilled staff to do this if they are divided among a large number of authorities. I may be out of order in mentioning this, but I hope that it will be reconsidered. If the length of time and

preparation of the plans affects planning itself and gives it an additionally bad name the effect on the release of land is even worse.
The Minister must be aware that there is a lack of urgency in local authorities today which is easy to understand because on the one side they have the threat of local government reform and on the other side they have the excuse of the out-of-date development plans. The remedy lies firmly in the hands of the Government. They must require speedy implementation of broad-brush structure plans without the statutory requirement. They must make it clear that they are prepared, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, to allow appeals on the housing front on land which is on the fringe of old development plans.
Turning to Clause 5, I am glad that control of office development is being retained. I was somewhat surprised to read the speech of Lord Silkin in which he said that he did not think this was necessary and that the whole thing could go back to the planning process alone. I put a question to the Minister for Transport Industries, but I do not think that he understood the point I was trying to make. The G.L.C. proposes, over the next decade, to increase the number of office jobs in London by 75,000. I do not say this will happen. It is being talked about.
The figure of 75,000 is almost exactly the total labour force envisaged for the new city of Milton Keynes when finally completed. It would be a tragedy if this wonderful opportunity London has—alone among capital cities—of being able to do something about its environment because of its falling population were to be lost. It is the high cost of office accommodation in central London that persuades firms to move. If the Minister accedes to the proposal of the G.L.C. he will at one and the same time destroy this chance of improving the environment of our capital city for good and all and he will exacerbate our housing difficulties, certainly in the inner London boroughs. He will also further overload commuting facilities to the outer metropolitan areas. Moreover, he will do grave injustice—and I admit that this is a constituency point—to the development of new towns


like Milton Keynes, and, even more important, areas of high unemployment beyond the Metropolitan region.
It is fair to say that both in the time of the Prince Regent and more recently, after the war and the destruction in the blitz, marvellous chances were missed for improving the environment of London. I hope that my hon. Friend will not miss the third chance.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would answer points which have been raised in the debate. Let me say first how pleased I am that the Bill has received support, on the whole, from both sides of the House.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) started with a complaint with which I have great sympathy. He said that we have just passed a consolidation Bill, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and then we bring in an amendment. Of course, the simple answer is that there is always a law which one might have included in a consolidation Bill if one had waited; there is never a right time to do consolidation. I think that perhaps on this occasion we could have looked ahead a little bit, and I accept the criticism.
I find that I am thought of as being something of an expert on consolidation Bills, having toiled at them at late hours of the night. I recollect one occasion, Mr. Speaker, when, having made an impassioned speech on a consolidation Bill, and having been called to order six times by your predecessor and then sat down—there were only the Minister and myself in the House apart from the occupant of the Chair—I found that somehow I raised the temperature in the House so much that someone in the Gallery rose to his feet, yelled abusive language, jumped over the rail and landed with a thud on the floor by the Bar of the House. If I can raise that sort of heat in a speech on a consolidation Bill such as that one was. I hesitate to think what I could do with such an interesting Bill as we have before us tonight.
The right hon. Member for Deptford asked whether I would keep that procedure suggested in the Bill for structure plans constantly under review. Well, of

course; and the working out of the procedure is not a matter which I shall feel has been decided once and for all when we start these inquiries. This will be an experiment, there is no doubt about it; and we shall try to work it the best way we can.
On the question of O.D.P.s, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think I had committed myself to anything. I must say that I thought I had committed myself quite a lot in saying what we intended to do with O.D.P.s in future. We intend to administer them from a positive angle, to assist the carrying out of the South-East Strategic Plan—that is to say, pinpointing growth areas as decided by that plan and deliberately using O.D.P.s for that purpose. So far as central London is concerned, we recognise that there must be adequate provision of modern office space in London to replace obsolete, outworn premises and that, more than that, we need a supply of new and modernised space available for developing concerns. I hope that we shall see in future a positive attitude to the use of this control. I think the control is still necessary, until the whole matter can be incorporated in the planning system, and we shall in the meantime use it positively.
The right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with conservation areas, referred to houses which might be allowed to fall into decay.
There is a procedure whereby the local authority can serve a repair notice on the owner of a listed building, and if those repairs are not carried out it gives rise to powers of compulsory purchase, so the local authority can take over the property and put it into repair. If a local authority takes that action, it may be doing so for a national purpose, for the public in general, and not necessarily for a local purpose. We have in mind assistance under those circumstances. I cannot go further than that at the moment except to say that it is under consideration, but I recognise the national importance, not merely the local importance, of saving historic buildings and places of architectural value.

Mr. Leadbitter: On the question of the repair notice, is it not a fact that the procedural rights of an owner would allow him to counter that notice to the


point at which a year or more could pass before the local authority could make the notice effective?

Mr. Page: It depends on how expeditiously the local authority deals with the matter. There is the owner's right to protect himself on these occasions, because they lead towards compulsory purchase and we must give him the right to defend himself.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Would not my hon. Friend concede that prevention is even better than cure? Although it is not in the Bill, so we probably cannot say much now, perhaps he could encourage some of his hon. Friends in other Departments to help provide incentives for owners not to let their buildings get into this! position. There are some incentives which can be given, not grants of taxes levied on individuals but concessions on the taxes they pay, to make it worth their while to keep these places in good repair.

Mr. Page: So long as this comes within the Money Resolution, perhaps we can discuss it in Committee. I am not sure whether it does, but it is certainly an idea.
The right hon. Member for Deptford mentioned the increase of staff required by planning authorities, as a result of what we are doing in the Bill, the general trend of the sophistication of planning and the reform of local government. He is convinced that there are not the qualified staff.

Mr. John Silkin: With respect, I am not convinced either way. I simply want strong reassurance.

Mr. Page: Perhaps I can convince the right hon. Gentleman. There are about 4,000 chartered planning officers in practice, with probably a substantial number not so qualified but fully qualified in experience. As against this approximate number of those in practice—I have had no complaints of current shortage; it is only anticipating future shortage—there are under training 1,100 in planning courses at the universities and 1,700 in colleges of further education. I cannot say how many of these will qualify. This training started back in 1967 or 1968 and it is now being stepped up again with the assistance of the University Grants Committee.
So there are in training about three-quarters of the number of those in practice. Like any other profession, as they come out they will not be qualified by experience, but I hope that during the next two years, before we get into local government reform, we may be able to use some of these on research work to give them experience. I hope that local authorities will take up their services to give them the necessary experience.
I feel that some existing local authorities may have a tendency to look down their noses at the man who is academically qualified and are not prepared to take them on as they should. I may be wrong, but this is the feeling I have. But these men who are academically qualified need experience and we should like to see them in jobs preparing for what is needed after local government reform.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made an absolute gem of a speech on planning. I shall read it again with great enjoyment. He mentioned that he had 40 years' experience on these matters and I must say that during those 40 years I have enjoyed periodically sitting behind him hearing the sort of things he said today. I am enjoying it just as much now that he is sitting behind me. He put forward my case today, as he has put forward my case on other occasions in other places, with great satisfaction to me. I do not think I need say any more. I will take into account all the things he said and the suggestions he made.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) asked that there should be more public participation. On this, the position is that I have already circulated to local planning authorities a document setting out to what extent we would wish them to carry out public participation on the lines of the report of the commission chaired by the late Arthur Skeffington. I pay my most sincere tribute to him for that work which he undertook with such great conscientiousness. Having received the comments of local authority associations and others on that document, I have amended and revised it and it will go out as a circular very soon.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about joint local plans. The local planning authorities drawing local plans in


London will have the right to draw joint local plans under the Bill. Others will gain the right under Clauses of the Local Government Bill. Therefore, that will work as the hon. Member wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) raised some interesting points based on his knowledge of agriculture. I assure him that whenever development is taking place on agricultural land the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is sought and we do not move without that advice. From that we appreciate the value of agricultural land and try to set it against the value to the public of the developments which are taking place on it such as motorways, ordinary roads, reservoirs and so on.
My hon. Friend asked one or two questions on the document issued by the National Farmers' Union. I assure him that the people who can make representations now will still be able to make them under the terms of the Bill if it becomes law. We are taking away no rights of representation. My hon. Friend asked whether the system of public examination would speed up public inquiries. I hope that it will, and this is half the object. The other half of the object is to see that we examine the important things. If we were to continue with the old system of public inquiry I do not think we would be able to examine all the right issues in structure plans.
My hon. Friend also asked whether there could be meaningful agricultural objections. I would point out that there is already provision for this in the 1968 Act.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked why parish councils should not have notice of planning applications. Perhaps I might read the Written Answer which I gave on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) on 24th January. I said:
I accept that parish councils that wish to have notice of planning applications relating to land within the parish should be entitled to do so. Legislation would be needed—and is not appropriate for any current Bill—to make this a statutory requirement. In the meantime, I shall commend, in a circular to local planning authorities on the wider question of local publicity for planning applications, the exten

sion of the voluntary arrangements in operation in many parts of the country whereby some local planning authorities do give parish councils an opportunity to see and comment on applications, within a strict time limit"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 339.]
Many local planning authorities have this arrangement with parish councils. But, in order to make it universal, I want to introduce it in convenient legislation. I am advised that, as it stands at present, the Long Title of the Bill precludes this, but we will see whether it may be possible to put down an Amendment to deal with this point.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) referred to a specific case in his constituency. Perhaps I might tell him that Clause 7 of the Blil was born in Alwyne Villas, in Islington, East. This is the case which gave rise to our thoughts about the demolition of buildings in conservation areas.
If Clause 7 was born in Alwyne Villas, its father was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman), who first introduced it to this House in his Private Member's Bill last year. My hon. Friend has invited me to accept a lot more than was in that Bill, but these are matters which I am sure he will raise in Committee. My hon. Friend wanted this Bill to take effect immediately. But it is traditional and conventional that there should be one month after Royal Assent for a Bill of this sort to take effect.
My hon. Friend also asked for publicity to be given to planning applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), asked the same question. We have something like 450,000 planning applications a year. If local planning authorities were required to give notice and to give time for the results from that notice on every occasion, I am afraid that the planning procedure would collapse. But I have in mind and hope to be able to put before the House very soon provisions for site notices in certain cases.
At present, we have the procedure with the "bad neighbour" case where notice has to be given. I want to extend that not by newspaper advertisements but by site notices for those cases where ordinary persons will be affected by some substantial development near their homes and they should be told about it. The best


way of telling them is to stick on the site a notice saying that it is to be developed, say, for a block of flats 24 storeys high. They will then be able to make their voices heard at a stage before the local planning authority deals with the matter.

Mr. Chapman: That is one of the most heart-warming utterances in the whole debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend. Will he also agree that there need be no delay to the consideration of planning applications if it is done, since those who want the development can put notices on the site while they are drawing up plans and before submitting them to local planning authorities?

Mr. Page: This is one of the main points. I do not want to create further delays in planning by this sort of procedure.
I come now to one further point made by my hon. Friend. It concerned the harmful substance on waste tips. Everybody has been shocked over the past few days to realise that there is nothing, other than perhaps the laws of common nuisance or trespass, to stop anybody tipping these poisonous substances anywhere they choose. If local authorities and those owning tips carried out the codes of practice for both ordinary refuse disposal and the disposal of toxic waste, which have been promulgated by the Department, this could not happen. I propose to take the earliest opportunity of making those codes of practice statutorily enforceable.
I have litle time to deal with the other interesting points which have been raised. I find that those hon. Members who have been sitting for long hours on the Local Government Bill are gluttons for punishment as several of them have spoken in this debate. I am grateful for their support both here and in Committee.
The whole point of Clause 3 is to reconcile what the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) called the conflict between the local planning authority and the public. I do not call it a conflict. After all, the local planning authority is a democratically elected body to carry out the work which the majority of people in the area want. The conflict is between the public works which a local planning authority authorises—I am thinking more of roads and that type of planning—and the indivi

dual who is interested in a particular site. Frequently, it is the individual who holds up some good planning work which is desired by the neighbourhood. Therefore, we have to try to strike a balance. The Bill will attempt to do just that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) asked about the speed at which we could carry out the structure plan system. I have dealt with the question of staff. The comments of the standing conference of local planning authorities in the South-East were very exaggerated when they said that the completion of the full cycle would take 20 years. I am determined that it shall not take anywhere near that time. If it takes a quarter of that time, I shall be very disappointed.
The preparation of the structure plans is not holding up the release of land. I take Southampton as an example where interim plans have been issued. The chief planning officer has already identified 35,000 sites for houses by issuing these interim plans before issuing the structure plans.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister do me the courtesy of telling me whether my point about the form of the conference which he is proposing in place of the old type of legalistic inquiry is fair?

Mr. Page: I am not sure that I should go as far as calling it the seminar—I gather that that is the impression which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) had of it—which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East explained. Its function is to probe the issues, not merely to hear objections.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend certain enactments


relating to development plans, to extend the duration of, and otherwise amend, certain enactments relating to the control of office development, to make further provision for controlling the demolition of buildings in conservation areas and for purposes connected

with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums so payable under that other enactment.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT

9.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move,
That the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
These regulations mark a further stage in the development of the family income supplement. They show our determination that the scheme shall not be static but be flexible and able to respond to changing circumstances. This is important in a scheme designed to help low-earning families and to relieve family poverty.
I remind the House of what the scheme has achieved so far, though it is still early days yet, the scheme having started only last August. In spite of some efforts to strangle it at birth, and some criticism that it did not mature completely overnight, it has made rapid progress in the first six months. We can fairly claim that it is a new and effective attack on family poverty. Because it is new, there is still a great deal to learn from experience, and we intend to learn.
The scheme is effective because all the money goes to those with children who badly need a boost in their income. It is working smoothly, there have been few complaints about it from those who are benefiting from it, and I am sure that the whole House will agree that this reflects great credit on the staff who have been operating the scheme and on all those throughout the country, in both local authorities and voluntary organisations, who have helped to bring F.I.S. to people, and families to F.I.S.
About 100,000 families are benefiting from F.I.S.., and they include over 250,000 children. This is a good start, on which we are about to build. Take-up is improving all the time, and there are over 3,000 new claims still coming in weekly. Our estimate is that over three-quarters of those eligible to £2 a week F.I.S. or more are, in fact, receiving it. In other words, we are reaching the bulk of the poorest of those who are eligible. True, take-up falls as the amount to which people are entitled falls, but, as I say, for

those on £2 a week or more the proportion is three-quarters; and it is rising all the time.
It is important to bear in mind that these beneficiaries are not only receiving F.I.S. or benefit through a higher rate of supplementary benefit than they would otherwise be receiving; they have, in addition, the passport to the other benefits attached to F.I.S., namely, exemption from prescription charges—the certificate is in the F.I.S. order book—and availability of free welfare milk and foods and free school meals.
It is impossible to give precise figures for the future. Inevitably, under a scheme of this kind, there are people coming in and going out. Moreover, the numbers will depend on variable factors which no one can precisely foresee. The most important variable factor is the level of earnings, but others are the prescribed amounts—which the present Regulations will increase—and the level of supplementary benefit; and the level of unemployment also is relevant because only those who are in full-time work are eligible for this benefit.
However, within the general context of the 100,000 families to whom I referred. some firm figures can be given. The average F.I.S. award is £1·73. One-third of the awards go to single-parent families, nearly all the parents in this group being women. The average payment to these single-parent families is £2·17. I think the House will agree that that is a highly satisfactory figure to a group of people who, when the scheme was introduced, we were all anxious should benefit from it. Another one-third of the awards go to one-child families, in other words, to the families who do not, and cannot benefit from the family allowances. That, too, is a welcome feature of the arrangements. In this case the average award is £1·93.
The best estimate that can be made is that the amount of money paid out in F.I.S. awards in the first year of the scheme will be more than £8 million. That compares with the original estimate of about £7 million, and I think that it adds point to the encouraging take-up figures which I have mentioned, particularly in the higher ranges, and it shows clearly, too, that the amount of money going to these families looks like


being considerably greater than the original estimate which was put before the House when the Bill came forward.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the estimated effect of this Statutory Instrument in the first year is an extra £1 million—from £7 million to £8 million?

Mr. Dean: I am not quite saying that. I am saying that a combination of the take-up figures and this Statutory Instrument will give rise to that additional expenditure.
Having mentioned those figures, may I go on to describe the Statutory Instrument in a little more detail. It up-rates the entitlement by £1 per family, and puts up the maximum payment from the existing £4 to £5. The regulations increase the prescribed amounts of £2 for each family size. Thus, the new prescribed amount for one-child families will be £20 a week, for two-child families £22, and so on. That is achieved by regulation 2.
Regulation 3 increases the maximum weekly payment to £5. Regulation 4 revokes the 1971 Computation Regulations with effect from 4th April, 1972, which is the date on which the new regulations will take effect if the House approves them.
Since F.I.S. is half the difference between gross family income and the appropriate prescribed amount, the effect of the regulations will be to increase F.I.S. entitlement by £1 a week for all families entitled to F.I.S. when the regulations take effect, or to bring into entitlement a number of other families who are at present excluded because their income is over existing limits, or who will be excluded when the current awards expire.
That is the main effect of the regulations, but in addition there are the important arrangements for bringing F.I.S. to families, and for bringing families to F.I.S. Perhaps I might first remind the House of what are now the regular procedures for this. Information about the scheme is given to people in full time work claiming free welfare milk or exemption from prescription charges, persons returning to work after receiving supplementary benefit, new and addi

tional family allowance beneficiaries, claimants for maternity benefit, and immigrants registering for national insurance. Leaflets are continually displayed at post offices, local offices of the Department, and elsewhere. Large employers in many areas, and all large Civil Service Departments, have been asked to display posters.
In addition to those new regular procedures there are three new features which I should like to describe briefly to the House. The first concerns families who apply for free school meals. We are working with the Department of Education and Science on arrangements which we hope will lead to information about F.I.S. going automatically to parents who apply for free school meals.
Some of these people are getting F.I.S. now, but not all of them and we believe that if we can work out suitable arrangements, this will prove an effective way of ensuring that all these families have direct and automatic knowledge about F.I.S. so that if they are eligible to receive it, they can apply.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I take it that the Minister is anxious to go a step beyond what has been the practice hitherto, which has been to rely purely on the process of application. In other words, in the past we have had to rely on those who are eligible for F.I.S. or other benefits applying before they could be considered for such payments.
If such a step forward can be made in respect of school dinners, does not the hon. Gentleman feel that it could be made in other spheres, such as free welfare milk? If an improved take-up can be achieved in respect of school meals, the Government should consider extending the new arrangements to other benefits.

Mr. Dean: In a number of the spheres which the hon. Gentleman has in mind we already operate an automatic passport system. It certainly operates in respect of school meals for families who are already on F.I.S. In that case there is an automatic entitlement. No further action is required on the part of the F.I.S. beneficiary to receive free school meals. Equally, it follows automatically that such beneficiaries get free welfare milk and welfare food. There is built


into the F.I.S. order book a certificate exempting them from prescription charges.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, therefore, that this will be a development in respect of those families who have applied for free school meals but who are not already eligible for F.I.S. That is the first new step which we hope will prove practicable in the near future.
The second is that in each of the English regions of the Department, as well as in Scotland and Wales, an officer of the Department will shortly be appointed with the specific task of reviewing the operation of the publicity arrangements, co-operating with the appropriate departments of local authorities and generally seeing that everything possible is done to ensure that people know about their F.I.S. entitlements. In other words, this will be a review of the arrangements with the object of seeing where they can most readily be improved and the way in which we can tighten up on any weak areas which now exist.
The third aspect which I hope hon. Members agree will strengthen the arrangements is that as from April of this year a slip containing a prominent reminder about F.I.S. will appear in all the 4 million family allowance order books. These are all developments aimed at improving take-up and are designed to make it as easy as possible to bring those who are entitled to F.I.S. within the range of it and to apply for it.
An aspect which I know concerns the House and which the Government are studying closely is the possible disincentive problem. This is a complex problem and there is no easy solution to it. However, it would be unthinkable to seek to solve it by withholding any of the benefits that we now provide for poor families, many of whom are not in a position to increase their earnings.
But the problem should not be exaggerated. It has been suggested, for example, that thousands of families would be worse off if they got a pay rise. Frankly, this is nonsense. Such suggestions are based on hypothetical cases which, if they arise at all, are highly exceptional. To the extent that the

difficulty arises from a particularly sharp reduction in the rent rebate, it will be considerably eased by the Government's national rent rebate scheme, under which the rebate will normally be reduced by only 17 per cent. of the increase in income, and never by more than 25 per cent. Moreover, the loss of F.I.S. will be taken into account, so that the earnings rise will not be counted twice over.
It is important to remember too, that any disincentive effect will be considerably mitigated by the fact that income is tested over different periods for the various benefits, and there can be a considerable time lag before an increase in income affects each benefit. Thus F.I.S. is based on the income over the five weeks preceding the claim, and, once awarded, it continues for six months regardless of any subsequent rise in income. This important fact is sometimes overlooked by those who predict a serious disincentive effect. There is no evidence that such an effect arises in practice, although this is one of the areas in which we accept the need for further research and which we shall watch carefully.
I have pleasure in commending these regulations to the House. They represent the first uprating of the scheme since it began. They certainly will not be the last uprating. I hope that the House will feel that the arrangements I have announced will lead to an improvement in the running of the scheme. My right hon. Friend is committed to a full review of the scheme after it has been running for 12 months—that is, later this year. Whatever detailed points there may be, I hope that the House will welcome these regulations as an advance in the battle against family poverty and as a practical step to improve the lot of hard pressed families.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morris: It is not my wish to detain the House long. I was impressed with the point made by the Minister when he referred to entitlement to family income supplement. He quite rightly suggested that one should not exaggerate the difficulties of entitlement. He said that it was nonsense to suggest that thousands would be worse off if they got a pay increase. In this regard may I draw


his attention to the dilemma which now faces a number of employees of the Post Office Corporation arising from the introduction of the corporation's new contributory superannuation scheme?
As hon. Members will recall, that scheme was introduced on 1st December last year. One of the qualifications for entering the contributory scheme was that existing employees of the corporation would receive a salary or wage enhancement of 6·383 per cent., in order that they could pay that element of their salary or wages as a contribution to the scheme. In other words, they received a salary and wage increase that wasn't.
As a consequence, a number of those employees in the lower salary and wage groups of the Post Office Corporation now find that their entitlements to F.I.S., to rate and rent rebates and, in Ipswich, their entitlement to be considered for the tenancy of a council house, are now in jeopardy. I am mindful that these difficulties may not as yet have received the Secretary of State's attention, but I ask him to consider the difficulties which have arisen for the lower salaried and wage groups of the Post Office Corporation and communicate with his ministerial colleague the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications about this matter.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: When the family income supplement was introduced it was criticised, but the progress report just given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary shows that that criticism was premature and ill-conceived. I know from experience in my constituency—I am sure that this is true of many families in other constituencies—that families have already benefited from this scheme and have good cause to thank the Government for recognising their needs and seeking to meet them in this novel way. I am sure that all hon. Members present will greatly welcome the uplift and the improvement brought about by these regulations.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: That sounded like a vote of thanks, and the first part of it was unnecessarily provocative. All of us should regret it if any Government, whether

Conservative or Labour, had to introduce such a scheme. However, we are not discussing the principles of the scheme and I shall confine myself, in a non-controversial manner, to asking questions.
The Under-Secretary said that use would be made of the information obtained through the school meals service. This is an important departure. At last one Department is willing to give information to another. I am in favour of this, although if some of the supporters of individual liberty hear about it there will doubtless be trouble. I hope that this includes the Scottish Office.

Mr. Dean: indicated assent.

Mr. Brown: I welcome the increases. I presume that the books will not just contain a reminder to those who already receive F.I.S. but that there will be a leaflet explaining the availability of this benefit to all.
What does the Department do with the information obtained? Obviously the fact that one-third of the awards go to single-parent families highlights a social problem, and the reasons for such families receiving F.I.S. are not necessarily connected.
The Government could do themselves a good turn in their obvious efforts to discuss an incomes policy with the T.U.C. I have always personally been in favour of such a policy. I should lik to think that there were ways and means of using the information obtained. Who are the low-paid wage-earners? If this matter is not handled properly it could arouse many suspicions. Surely it should be possible in the Department to define areas of workers who are lowpaid—local authority employees, people who work in cemeteries, and so on. There must be areas which are becoming identified, but everybody is getting bogged down in administrative detail with unnecessary problems if people are receiving reasonable wages. I am not taking about miners or anything controversial.
Sooner or later someone must initiate a pilot scheme to improve the administration. I have raised the question of the number of income-tested benefits before, and the reply has been, "They are not all our responsibility. The bulk of


them are local authority income-tested benefits." That is true, but we are reaching the stage where it may be worth carrying out an experiment. Something like the social works department in Scotland might be an ideal set-up for liaison between Government Departments and local authorities with a view to providing trained clerical people, not necessarily social workers or civil servants but people with enough knowledge of all the benefits and the general income limits to be able to tell people, "You are near enough to apply for this or that benefit." A central point would be worth experimenting with, not just for F.I.S. but for all the other assistance available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the regulations. It would be better if he confined himself to the amounts in the regulations.

Mr. Brown: One of the purposes of what I have suggested is to draw to the attention of more and more people the increased amount within the regulations. With that obvious attempt to keep within the rules of order, I conclude, and await with interest the Minister's reply.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: I am sure that we all welcome the regulations. In the light of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said about the need for using the information we obtain, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to dwell a little further on the statistics we have already been given? We are told that roughly one-third of the families receiving F.I.S. are one-parent families. How many of them are families where there is a married mother and how many are families where there is a woman with an illegitimate child? My own observation—I do not pretend to have access to the statistics—is that the principal beneficiaries of F.I.S. are women with illegitimate children, who have formed a pocket of poverty and have largely been left out on a limb. Perhaps the most admirable aspect of F.I.S. is that it has reached that section of our society, which has been completely neglected.
In our constituencies we all meet the woman with an illegitimate child, a

woman who is perhaps not very bright. It is not her fault; it is the way God made her. She is trying to cope on her own. If she has a job she has hitherto been outside the range of the welfare services. F.I.S. does something at last for such women and their households. I should like my hon. Friend to give us any information he has about the number of women with illegitimate children who are benefiting from F.I.S.
A great deal turns upon the take-up of this scheme. Would it not be possible to simplify the application process? The applicant has either to go to the social security office or to fill up a form and send it in. Is there any reason why an applicant for F.I.S. should not be able to obtain an application form from a post office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The regulations are concerned with the raising of the amounts. I wish the hon. Member would try to keep to that.

Mr. Curran: I appreciate that, and I want more people to get the increased amounts by making it easier for them to apply. I hope you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am strictly within the rules of order. I ask that an applicant should be able to walk into the nearest post office for a form, instead of having to go to the social security office.
Many fears were expressed on the introduction of the scheme that it might act in restraint of wage rises. We were told that by subsidising the income of people in full employment we were going back to Speenhamland and holding out an incentive to employers to keep wages down. Has the Minister any evidence of this? Does he see any ghosts marching from Speenhamland? I do not offer an answer, I ask the question, and it would be of public interest if we could have an answer.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) may take personal satisfaction in digging deep into the recesses of his mind for the example of Speenhamland, but the answer to his question will not answer the question of the 1970s. There is something wrong with a country which has to introduce an incomes supplement and a means test to go with it. How can the Minister be proud of the increase when


it is a measure of the Government's economic failure?
Today two Questions were asked about the purchasing power of money. The one I tabled related to retired people and is therefore not relevant to this argument. The other Question asked about the fall in purchasing power taking the value of the £ as 100, and the answer was that the £ was now worth 88½p, a fall of 11½ per cent. In a year the purchasing power of the £ has fallen by approximately 10p. The increase we are debating tonight only partially restores the purchasing power of the original family income supplement. The Minister is not adding one iota to the well being of the people.
The Minister has given us a progress report, which I have attacked, because it is nothing to shout about. He says we have succeeded in attracting 100,000 families. That is a new use of the word "succeeded". The figures include 250,000 children, and there is obviously some easement for people. If a person on the poverty line gets £1 it will go towards paying the £1 increase on the rent which will come about as a result of the operation of the Housing Finance Bill. The Minister may say these people will be excluded, but in practice any form of rebate scheme catches up with poorer people.
The hon. Gentleman says that one-third of single-parent families have been attracted. The single-parent family is one of the most nauseating, undignified and disgraceful social conditions today. A man or woman, because of lack of enforcement of the maintenance system or the inability of the other spouse to meet the order, has to go to the clerk to the justices, is turfed out of there, and has to go to the local social security offices, maybe at the other side of the town. Then they have to be means-tested to get extra. Out of the thousands of people in this plight we have attracted this small number. Even in this controversial area little progress has been made. The average earnings in manufacturing industry are £28·50. The desperate circumstances of these families are not eased by making them submit themselves to bureaucratic means-testing. I make no comment on the levels of unemployment: the nation has already done that for me.
The Minister says that slips will be put into the family allowance books in April. Before Government or local government start dealing with those in poverty, they should ask themselves how they would like it if every penny had to be justified on forms. We are doing this wrong—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not on the point of the regulations. He is now dealing with the general principle.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I quoted the Minister, and then indicated by disapproval of this system of slips in order books. Is it not time that the Minister stopped making a great mountain out of this molehill of a scheme, which cannot deal with poverty? No one has tried to deal with it in the right way. The party opposite look upon poverty and lack of privilege from the basis—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now reverting to precisely the course of conduct that I asked him to stop.

Mr. Leadbitter: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was then dealing with the problem of the regulations, so I submit that I am in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman now referring to the increase in the amount or to the general principle of the method?

Mr. Leadbitter: I am dealing with the amount, which is a projection of the scheme. The regulations could not be before the House without the original scheme. The amount and the scheme itself are not the way to deal with this problem, because they conform with the normal Tory Party philosophy of dealing with these social problems.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: What an extraordinary speech we have just heard—a Socialist deprecating a Government who are trying to help the less well-off sectors of our community! I never thought I would hear such a speech from a Socialist. Surely my hon. Friend has moved with great speed in this matter to redress the position and to further his intentions as to when the regulations shall take effect. In comparison with my hon. Friend's speed in


this matter, the efforts of the Labour Government during their term of office went at a mere snail's pace.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) put his finger on an important matter in mentioning the marginal area of wages. My hon. Friend the Minister has expressed concern about this and has said that after a period of 12 months there will be a review of the situation to see how the regulations have operated.
I also deplore the low wages that make provisions of this sort necessary. But, as well as deploring this situation, we on this side of the House are tackling it. These factors obtained during the Labour years of office and they did not tackle them. This is why the present Government should be congratulated on their swift action.
These regulations will provide useful help for the deserted wife; in other words, for the one-parent family. I am pleased to see that the Minister has increased the figures to £20 and £5, and I believe that this will redress the balance. It is good news that the one-parent family will form such a large proportion of the people applying for help. I very much welcome these regulations and wish to take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend on his expedition.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: In introducing the Statutory Instrument the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State praised the scheme in the fulsome terms of an advertising practitioner in Madison Avenue. He was also supported by two of his back benchers, whose speeches revealed more enthusiasm than detailed knowledge of the operation of the scheme. The Under-Secretary and his back benchers having presented to the House a glossy prospectus which does not give the full facts, I know that the House will be grateful if I, in a completely unbiased way, try to add to the information the hon. Gentleman has given.
Hon. Members on this side of the House continue to believe that the family incomes supplement is an unsatisfactory method of tackling the general problem of family poverty. It extends the jungle of the means test, with all the undesirable side effects inherent in the extensive use of such schemes. However, I will not

repeat, nor would it be in order to repeat, the detailed objections to the scheme made during the passage of the substantive legislation in 1970. It is clearly right that before the provisions of this Statutory Instrument come into operation we should examine their implications.
There has been a great deal of criticism during the whole period in which the F.I.S. has been in operation, and indeed earlier, about the disincentive effects of the scheme and the high marginal tax rates involved. So sensitive are the Government on this matter that, even before anybody stood up to criticise the regulations on those grounds, the Under-Secretary sought to come to the House with a pre-emptive strike. I hope to have a little to say later about his comments on this disincentive effect—

Mr. Dean: It is sound tactics.

Mr. O'Malley: It is if one has a weapon with which to make a pre-emptive strike. But the hon. Gentleman has not, and I shall show why.
The Government have stressed the importance of increasing incentives to workers at all levels. The wealthier have been given priority in the provision of such incentives. But there has been no such overall help for the lower-paid and the recipients of the family income supplement, who have been defined by the Secretary of State as being the "poorest of the poor". They suffer extremely high marginal tax rates as a result of the F.I.S. scheme. There are no financial incentives for them to increase their earned income; in fact, the reverse is the case.
I want to examine some of the effects of the family income supplement as it will operate from April, 1972, assuming that these regulations are passed. However, before doing that, it is important to ask one general question on the subject, because it is relevant to the rates which are set in the regulations.
The following appeared in the Economist of 22nd January, 1972, on page 22:
F.I.S. has attracted a good deal of criticism for creating high marginal tax rates.
That is precisely what it was meant to do, and perhaps we shall be told whether that is the case. Certainly that view was


not expressed from the Treasury Bench when the substantive legislation was going through Parliament.
In attempting to deal with the disincentive effect, obviously the Under-Secretary regarded the problem as almost incapable of solution. He said that the argument that the scheme produced disincentives was nonsense. He said that the argument was based on hypothetical cases. Then he admitted that there was a need for further research on the matter.
One does not need research to see that these disincentives for higher wage earnings amongst recipients of F.I.S. will be markedly increased when the new benefit rates come into operation in April. If we ask ourselves whether this scheme provides serious disincentives for working overtime or obtaining higher overall earnings, we have only to remember one fact, and that is that any recipient loses 50 per cent. of every £1 increase in his wages in reduction of F.I.S. alone. Having moved over the tax threshold, he will lose another 35p income tax. He will suffer a lower rent rebate. He will probably lose other means-tested benefits. He will be faced with increased national insurance contributions.
We are all perfectly capable of taking a family of any given size, with the head of the family with any given wage up to £24. The figures speak for themselves. There is a very high marginal rate of taxation. So large is it that the recipient of F.I.S. can find himself no better off and even worse off with a wage increase. He will need a massive wage increase in order to be any better off.
There has been substantial comment in the Press on this matter which the Under-Secretary tried to shrug away by saying that it was nonsense. If he is to sustain this argument, he must take the figures as they will be in operation after 4th April, in accordance with these regulations, and say that all the examples which we can work out are not true. I suggest that he certainly cannot do that. In addition, family income supplement payments are included in the total income when calculating rate rebates under the Housing Finance Bill which is under consideration in this House. Families receiving family income supplement will, therefore, suffer reduced rent rebates.
It remains the case that after 4th April, when these increases come into effect, the payments made to poorer families where the head of the family is still in full-time work will still be below the supplementary benefit level. Therefore, after 4th April the criticism which was made on Second Reading, that a second lower poverty line was being created by the Bill, will continue to operate.
It is also the case that under the existing tax benefits structure of family allowance, child tax allowance and claw-back, standard rate taxpayers in some circumstances receive more, as much, or almost as much financial consideration from the State in respect of their dependent children as the recipients of the family income supplement who are, as the Secretary of State said, the poorest of the poor.
In view of the notable defects of the scheme as revised by these regulations, will the Under-Secretary give us an indication of the Government's longer-term thinking on the existing tax benefits structure?
The hon. Gentleman has already said that by August next year the Secretary of State will be reviewing the family income supplement scheme. By that time, I assume, the report on the problems of one-parent families will have been received. I hope that if a solution can be found for the financial problems of such families it will not depend on means testing.
We are bound to ask the Under-Secretary, seeing how the family income supplement rates have moved and are moving as a result of these regulations, whether the Government see the F.I.S. scheme as a permanent feature, whether they are examining other ways, through family allowances, which we have been told for 18 months are still under review, or whether variants of the existing tax benefits structure are being examined as a substitute for the type of F.I.S. scheme which is amended by these regulations.
The House is grateful to the Under-Secretary for the information that he has given on take-up. He mentioned that 100,000 families were now receiving family income supplement and thought that that was a good start. The hon. Gentleman then presented us with some


figures, which put the best possible face on the Government's case, indicating that 75 per cent. or more of the poorest people entitled to F.I.S. are receiving it. Nevertheless, it remains the case, does it not, that probably one-third of the total number of families who are entitled to F.I.S. are receiving it and two-thirds, as yet, are not?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on the article which appeared in The Times of Wednesday of last week—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Not Meacher again?

Mr. O'Malley: No, it was not by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). If the hon. Gentleman showed half as much detailed knowledge of the problems of poverty as my hon. Friend, he would be a far more effective Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman tonight. It is merely that he put his nose into what was virtually a private quarrel between the Under-Secretary and myself.
In The Times of last Wednesday there was a report of some comments by the Child Poverty Action Group on the operation of F.I.S. [Interruption.] If the Financial Secretary wishes to pour scorn on this group, perhaps he will do it publicly and not sotto voce. If he has a low opinion of the group, I will give way to him to enable him to say so publicly. Apparently he does not wish to avail himself of my offer. The article said:
In fact, looking at the benefit showing the largest increase, free welfare food, the Government has reached less than a third of the families eligible.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will comment on that.
It remains the case that the take-up is nowhere near the percentage which the Secretary of State thought would be satisfactory. Second, only a tiny proportion of families are receiving any help—100,000. The scheme is very small, indeed.
The hon. Gentleman should give us some information about the average sums paid. I should be grateful if he would tell the House what he expects the aver

age figure of £1·73 to be as a result of the up-rating contained in these regulations. Perhaps he could tell us, too, what is the extra estimated annual cost of these changes, what is the estimate for the additional numbers involved, and how many families who would not have been entitled to F.I.S. will be brought into eligibility as a result of the proposals in this Statutory Instrument.
Is it the case that family income supplements that are being paid on 4th April, 1972, having been granted before that date, will automatically go up to the new rate?

Mr. Dean: Yes.

Mr. O'Malley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that they will, because the regulations do not make that clear.
Why it is that the figure of £2 has not been altered? Since the passing of the 1970 Act that prescribed sum has been increased from £15 to £18, and now to £20. The maximum F.I.S. payable has been increased from £3 through to £4, and now to £5, but the £2 in respect of additional children after the first child in estimating the prescribed sum has remained stationary at a time when general wage levels have been rising. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why that figure of £2 has been left unchanged.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will feel able not only to answer the specific and detailed questions which I have asked, but to say something further about the general comments which I have made on the incentive, or disincentive, policies of the Government, and about longer-term Government thinking and policy in this difficult matter of family poverty.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the House that the Government are engaged in a full-scale policy review which will obviate the need for a scheme which is riddled with anomalies and which suffers from major defects in trying to deal with family poverty.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Dean: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may deal briefly with some of the points raised during the debate. I am grateful to the House for the general welcome which, I think, has


been given to these regulations, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren), Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) and Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey). I am grateful, too, for the kind comments made by a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) expressed regret that we needed this scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, while we have the problem of low wages which are below the supplementary benefit level this is a practical way of dealing with the problem. That is really the main reason for a scheme of this kind.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), asked me about the Post Office superannuation scheme increased contributions. I was not aware of any particular difficulty which is arising for this group of people, but I will gladly look at the point he raised, because it may well be that there is experience here which will guide us as to the future of the scheme.
The hon. Member for Provan asked me a number of questions but first welcomed the co-operation which is growing up now between the various Departments not only so much for exchange of information but in ensuring that a group of people who get one benefit and are automaticaly entitled to another, or should get another, know about it.
I mention this not only in respect of the Department of Education and Science, but also because it applies equally in Scotland and Wales. We expect to—and have undertaken to—provide the House with as much information as we can as soon as we have it available and it has been assessed as to whom the low earners are and what working groups they fall into.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned also the multiplicity of means tests and asked what we were hoping to achieve, particularly with the test administered by local authorities. It is broadly the case that most means tests administered at the centre are within the automatic passport arrangements and are therefore linked to F.I.S. in this way, or will be fairly shortly. We are discussing with the local authority associations the possibility of extending the passport arrangement into other fields,

but it is too early to say what the outcome of discussions will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge welcomed particularly the help to the one-parent family, the vast majority of which parents are women, and he asked me whether I could say how many of these women who are benefiting have illegitimate children. I cannot give him a precise figure for them, because we do not ask questions about the status of the mother. We are anxious not to cause embarrassment, and that is why I cannot give the information.
My hon. Friend also asked about the forms available in Post Offices and other places and asked whether it would not be a good idea for the leaflet explaining the scheme and the form of application to be available together. We pride ourselves in the Department that we are fast workers, and I can tell him that the new leaflet incorporating the form is now ready and if the House passes the regulations tonight it will be available tomorrow. It will take a little time to get it to his post office but I hope he will agree that we have responded with admirable promptitude to his suggestion.
The hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) spoke about the one-parent family, and mentioned the Finer Committee, which will give us valuable guidance on what additional help can be given to the one-parent family, as soon as it reports.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) made some points about the scheme, mentioning in particular the disincentive effect, and quoted the Economist. But he stopped in the middle of a sentence, and, in fairness to this excellent and balanced report, I should complete the sentence. It goes on, after a semi-colon:
the corollary to its ' disincentive' effect is that those who suffer a decline in earnings are cushioned from the blow, since F.I.S. is designed to make up half the difference between actual income and some prescribed figure".
It goes on to deal with the disincentive point which the hon. Member raised. It adds:
But a man who earns more but does not only lose F.I.S., but other benefits as well, so that theoretically he may even be worse off than he was before. In practice, this is avoided because the different benefits are altered at different moments through the year and F.I.S., for example, is awarded for six months".


This is a particularly effective way of putting the point, though it is not to say that we minimise the problem. There is a problem, and we are looking at it. We are simply saying that the wrong way to deal with it is to say, "We will not give these families any help at all." That would be a counsel of despair.

Mr. Kinsey: Is it not a fact that as F.I.S. does the job it is intended to do—namely, to bring the total sum up to the desired level—there is less need for the cushion, as it were?

Mr. Dean: Yes, and the scheme is not intended to carry people for ever, so to speak. It is designed to give them a lift while their earnings are low, and when their earnings rise the need for F.I.S. naturally diminishes. However, we must be careful not to get a sudden disincentive effect, and the spreading of the benefits and, above all, the award of F.I.S. over six months, irrespective of earnings, helps to deal with this problem. We must work to make these arrangements better than they are, but it is fair to say that we are aware of this problem and are dealing with it.
The hon. Member for Rotherham went on to mention the tax structure. Considering the record of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Government of which he was a member, I was surprised at his comments. His right hon. Friend was responsible for seeing that in a tax structure in which one has a very small margin between the area where tax is paid and where supplementary benefit is available, the problem was greatly accentuated. My right hon. Friend has at least begun to tackle this problem, and the improvement in the child allowances has been a big step in that direction.

Mr. O'Malley: I referred not to the tax structure but to the tax benefit structure, and it is the case that the poorest families who are not paying tax receive less financial consideration from the State through the child tax allowances and clawback system than the standard rate taxpayer, who gets the full advantages of the child tax allowance, in addition to family allowance.

Mr. Dean: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to deny that

we have through F.I.S., whatever the effect of the tax arrangements, given substantial additional net help to these groups of people, who are some of the poorest in the land.
The hon. Member for Rotherham then asked about take-up and mentioned the figure of one-third. I do not think he was speaking of the family income supplement. Be that as it may, I repeat that the take-up figures are improving all the time. Overall, they are about 50 per cent., but the important point is that for those families who are most in need of F.I.S. and who are getting £2 or more, the take-up figure is at least three-quarters and may be even higher.
I gave the cost figures. The estimate of £8 million for the first full year takes into account the increase in the prescribed amounts in this Instrument. The hon. Gentleman asked whether those who are getting a payment now will automatically get the increase of £1 when the uprating comes into operation on 4th April. The answer to that is that they will. This will be automatically in their order books. We shall ensure that they get the increase.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why we had not changed the £2. One could argue that the £2 could have been changed, but equally we felt that it was most appropriate on this occasion to improve the amount for the families and to improve the upper limit from the existing figure £4 to £5. That seemed to be the right order of priorities.
I repeat that we are committed to review the whole scheme after 12 months. There is no doubt that we are learning from experience. In introducing a new scheme of this kind, one learns far more from the practical operation of the scheme about needy groups and where the scheme can be improved. With great respect to surveys, one learns far more from practical operations. When we review the scheme after 12 months' operation we shall be able to introduce improvements to it, both in its working and in its effectiveness in covering those groups of people that we all wish to see covered.
I am grateful to the House for the remarks which have been made. I hope


that this Statutory Instrument will be approved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND LOANS ORDER

11.16 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.
The Order increases by a further £50 million the amount which is available for lending from the National Loans Fund to the Northern Ireland Government. The House will recollect that under the Finance Act, 1970, there was an original limit of £50 million on this lending, but the limit can be raised by the same amount on up to three occasions by order. Last April the House accepted the first of these orders which I moved, and during the debate on it, I indicated, in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), that it might be necessary to come back for a second order within the twelve-month; and so it has proved.
The Northern Ireland Government have not yet exhausted the whole of the £50 million made available under that order, but they are likely to do so fairly soon. In view of the uncertainties of the situation, we thought it desirable to seek Parliamentary approval for an increase in good time.
Also last April I indicated to the House the broad purposes for which the money is to be available, and I explained how those purposes are broadly settled between the Westminster and Stormont Governments. Since then we have had the report of the Cairncross review body, which recommended, among other things, that a finance corporation should be set up in order to help the Northern Ireland economy. The legislation setting this up will fall to be introduced into the Northern Ireland Parliament and has not yet

been so introduced. Therefore, it is not possible for me to go into any great detail as to what will be involved, but it is envisaged that some of the money which passes from the National Loans Fund to the Northern Ireland Government under this Order may be made available to that finance corporation if and when it is set up. It is right to point out to the House that the scope for the spending of the money passed by these orders may in future be somewhat wider than it was when I spoke to the House on the last order.
The Order has been reported on by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I commend it to the House. If hon. Members have any queries to raise, perhaps, if I catch your eye at the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can deal with the questions in reply.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The House will not wish to deny the passage of the Order, but I wish to raise a number of issues which, given the great interest in Northern Ireland, should form part of the wider discussion which is taking place. It is important that we know more about the machinery of government between Westminster and Northern Ireland in respect of the National Loans Fund expenditure involved in the Order. There is much talk about the wider relationship between Westminster and Northern Ireland. Solutions have been offered in many documents and newspaper articles. It would assist the discussion of this question if we knew more about the financial relationship between Westminster and Northern Ireland.
On delving into the subject recently, I have been struck by the fact that, to obtain information about this relationship between the two Governments, it is necessary to look in many corners.
The Financial Secretary explained again this year that under the Finance Act, 1970, the borrowing powers were 15 million units, so to speak, but could be increased by order. Last year we had £50 million. This year we have another £50 million. I presume the time is coming when we shall have to look at the whole matter again, because we can have only one more bite at the cherry, and I question, whether this is the appropriate way of setting about it.
How is the required sum calculated? I know from experience that there is a direct line between the Home Department and Northern Ireland. Where does the Treasury come into it? Does the Treasury talk direct to Northern Ireland, or does it talk through the Home Office? In the Finance Acts, 1965 to 1969, the sum rose from £70 million to £120 million to £170 million. The figures are different as a result of the 1970 legislation. What bearing does an increase have on the macroneeds of United Kingdom finances, a major reason for establishing the National Loans Fund originally to finance the nationalised industries, local authorities, and even private bodies? Do the Government say that there are the overall needs of the United Kingdom but that, Northern Ireland being what it is, there shall be no relative limit?
Last February's issue of the accounts of the National Loans Fund states merely—
Loan transactions appearing in the National Loans Fund account in respect of which no account is included in this volume.
—and then it says "Northern Ireland" and gives the figure. In this form the accounts of the National Loans Fund do not tell one much about the finance of Northern Ireland. Why is there not a separate volume dealing with the finances of Northern Ireland?
Keeping within the rules of order on the National Loans Fund, it is helpful to consider why the finance should be in the form of loans. One could judge how much should be in the form of loans if the same document contained details of the Joint Exchequer Board's decision on the share of the national taxes that are given to Northern Ireland and if one also knew how much went to Northern Ireland in the form of agricultural subsidies, R.E.P., social services and—I am hesitant on this point because it has not been possible for me to check it—the extra money given, at least by the previous Administration as I recall, which came under the heading of
Monies to relieve the present distress".
If the finances of Northern Ireland were presented together we could consider, in particular, the question of loans from the National Loans Fund. Of course, it was right, as the previous Administration said, and as was reaffirmed by my

right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. James Callaghan) in Command paper 4178, to cover the agreed capital requirements of Northern Ireland on a continual basis. It was difficult for Northern Ireland to raise these loans on the market.
To which "on-lending" purposes—that was the expression used by the Financial Secretary last year—are we agreeing tonight in approving this Order? It used to be the Northern Ireland Housing Trust and it used to be, and maybe it still is, because they are in a transitory position, new towns and local government. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is taking over all these responsibilities. We are providing money tonight for the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland and also money for the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Co. This intrigues me because last night we abolished the Transport Holding Co. in this country. Does the Westminster Government have no say in how this money should be spent? I have looked at the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company's accounts and its activities make most interesting reading. Do the Ulster Government simply ask for money for this company or do our Government refuse to provide it because we have abolished such a company here?
There is also the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, which is another title for the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. Do the Westminster Government suggest that because they have abolished the I.R.C. here, it would be foolish to have a similar lender of last resort in Northern Ireland?
Money is provided for education and rates and the Northern Ireland development programme. Do the Westminster Government get involved in any way in the development programme that has been announced? In arriving at the sum for which we are being asked, do they take into account, other than the monies "to relieve present distress", the amount of destruction that is taking place in Northern Ireland?
Is industrial development taken into account through the National Loans Fund? If not, why not? I ask because in the Report of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, a Westminster document of 2nd August, I find that grants were given to


Harland and Wolff under Sections 3 and 5 of the 1967 Act. The board was ended at the end of last year. I accept that grants are involved, but how will the Westminster Government now provide the money for Harland and Wolff, given the demise of the board? Will that have any bearing on the monies we are being asked to vote?
Apparently the money we are to grant tonight must be spent on capital projects. I think I am using the words the Financial Secretary used last year. These projects are described in agreements between the two Governments. The hon. Gentleman also said last year that the Government do not specify but that the Northern Ireland Government specify certain broad categories. Where can we find out what those broad categories are? I have not been able to find them. They should be readily available.
There is, quite properly, a great deal of discussion here and in Northern Ireland about changes in the representation of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. In the discussions, which I presume are conducted by the Home Office, though the Treasury provides the money, is anything said about such matters? For example, when money is provided for the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland, is anything said about the number and type of people on the board? I am seeking not to make the sort of speech now that becomes involved in the delicate problems of Northern Ireland, but it was brought to my notice that none of the five members was a Catholic. I do not know whether that position has altered.
My last point has a bearing on the fact that we are providing money out of the National Loans Fund. By the signing during the past week of the Treaty of Accession in Brussels, both the United Kingdom and Eire—and, therefore, Northern Ireland and Eire—are in the same trading organisations. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may not be able to explain the ramifications off the cuff, but do we have any comitment to report these sums of money from the National Loans Fund to Brussels? If so, as may well be the case in terms of macro decisions that I understood were under discussion, is there any question of co-ordination with other members of the Ten, as they will be, and in that case with Eire?
It might be a good idea, because I have notice from the Press during the last couple of days that the Prime Minister has expressed the view that if we had been in the European Economic Community in 1961, the Northern Ireland conflict would not have arisen; economic developments would have taken place which would have muted it. I simply ask whether, in terms of loans and, therefore, capital infusion into Northern Ireland, there could be any discussions as a result of our going into Europe in which the Eire Government would be involved.
There is much discussion about Northern Ireland. Financial support is vital. But why not let us have the information, by way of an annual report, over the whole spectrum so that we can come to a clearer decision about the need for this sort of money? I express the hope that before we meet again to discuss loans from the National Loans Fund to Northern Ireland—and at the present rate that might not be too far distant—we shall have heard news of major political steps which the Government have taken in that unhappy Province, because in discussing finance prosaically, as we are tonight, we cannot forget the major political problems that exist there.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I do not feel that this occasion can pass without saying two things. The first is to express sincere thanks and gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for increasing the borrowing powers of the Northern Ireland Government, particularly at this time. The Government have shown very considerable financial generosity to Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said. That financial assistance should be understood, acknowledged and appreciated.
As I understand the position, the £50 million which is the subject of the Order is for capital expenditure projects and developments in the Province. It is in no way earmarked for repairing the ravages of terrorism. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will correct me if I read it wrongly. Nor do I assume that the £50 million which is suggested for the funding of the Cairn-cross Finance Corporation, if I may call it that, would necessarily automatically be the same amount as we are putting forward tonight, although anything that is


left over from this £50 million may go to the funds of the new finance corporation when it is formed.
My second point concerns the capital expenditure on development projects for which the funding envisaged in the order will be used because, despite what may be claimed in certain quarters—that over the past three years of terrorism Northern Ireland has been brought to its knees—Ulster is getting on with the job, as I hope to show, and this underscores the timeliness of the order at this juncture.
When one thinks of Government funding in Northern Ireland, one inevitably thinks of the current tragic rate of unemployment of 8·9 per cent., or, to express it another way, 11 per cent. of the male population. Government finance can assist substantially in creating employment opportunities, and thereby reducing that awful figure of 8·9 per cent.
The Northern Ireland Government succeed in attracting investment other than that which comes directly from the Treasury, as the statistics for the last quarter of 1971 show. We attracted more money in that period than in the corresponding period of 1970—£7½ million in the last quarter of 1971.
I assume that some of the funding of this loan will go to the Local Economic Development Unit which was established this year under the aegis of the Ministry of Commerce. Its function is to promote small industrial projects in rural areas, and it has already created 800 jobs. On the job front, quoting statistics of the last quarter of 1971 against the last quarter of 1969, the number of jobs created in that three-month period was only 10 fewer in 1971 than in 1969.
The Minister of Finance in Stormont last week outlined capital expenditure of £18½ million, which I assume in part to be the residue of the previous £50 million loan granted by Parliament and in part the sum which I hope will be granted tonight. I presume this will also be used for apprenticeship training, which has increased by 25 per cent. in the last year.
Reference has been made to the Housing Trust, now the Housing Executive. In the last calendar year Northern Ireland built more houses than at any time in its history. A comparative figure for England would be a rate of 450,000

houses a year, which I am told by English standards is a fairly substantial number.
I apologise for having used more statistics in one speech than in any of the speeches I have made since I first came here. This being a financial order, it is important not only to get on the record the purposes for which one hopes the money will be used, but also to give some idea of the purposes for which previous loan funds have been used.
When one looks at the five-year development programme for which the last £50 million was in part used, one finds that in its first year, 1971, school building, health and welfare and industrial training programmes are right on target. Whereas industrial production in the United Kingdom has increased by 2·6 per cent. in the last two years, in Northern Ireland the increase has been 11 per cent. and in manufacturing industry 14 per cent.
This £50 million which we hope the House will grant is most welcome and timely, and will be of enormous assistance. It is well known that high unemployment inevitably contributes to community troubles. Despite the bombs and bullets of the terrorists and the drenching publicity which Northern Ireland has had to endure, it can be seen that the silent majority is getting on with the job of developing Ulster's economy, and this £50 million injection will be most welcome. I warmly and whole-heartedly support the Order.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Having listened to some passages of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), one might be forgiven for wondering why the House thinks it necessary to make available so much more money to Northern Ireland. I welcome the increase although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), since such a large sum of money is involved, I want to raise some questions on the use to which it will be put.
I echo the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to the Financial Secretary last year about how the money is being spent and how it is being accounted for. The Financial


Secretary has come to the House tonight no better equipped to answer that question than he was last year. He said last year—and this is more than he has said tonight:
… one must look to publications of the Northern Ireland Government to find out how the money has been spent. It is not detailed in this country. I am told that there are publications, in much the same way as we would have for our National Loans Fund, detailing the expenditure which the Northern Ireland Government have made drawing on the money they have borrowed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 408.]
He said that he indicated the broad purposes last year. They were very broad and I hope that he will have more to say tonight, not merely about how the money is being spent but about the priorities. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) in the discussion last year on a similar order spoke for less than a minute, and uttered fewer than 50 words. The only two objects of expenditure he thought necessary for the money then being made available were the motorway system and the development of Belfast Airport. This was given the state of affairs in Northern Ireland and the condition of the people there. This is not a condition to which they have been suddenly reduced but is a condition which for many has been a permanent state of affairs.

Mr. Pounder: As I was present when my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) made that speech, I should tell the hon. Gentleman—and I know he is not trying to be unfair—that the two points my hon. Friend raised were both constituency matters.

Mr. Duffy: It seems remarkable that his hon. Friend could not have gone on to say a further word about other purposes to which the money might be devoted. I cannot find in the speech of the hon. Gentleman a year ago much evidence of urgency. If last year's loan and its distribution is any guide, then half of the monies now being made available will go to local authorities. Is there not a case for a larger share to go to the housing authority? Given the reference of my hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Monday to the setting up of the I.R.C., I am tempted to ask whether some of this money will go to the I.R.C., and how much will

go to the development programme. How much might yet go to investment grants, as we are led to understand there is a considerable attachment in Northern Ireland to the continued use of these?
Does the Minister envisage some of this money being made available to Harland and Wolff'? I raise these matters for three reasons. First because it could mean that there will be less money available for local authorities and therefore for infrastructure and consequently less money to relieve the social conditions of the people; and, secondly, it could be that we are being asked to make money available for purposes which conflict with Government policy. Thirdly, it could be that we are being asked by the Government to support policies which will seem to be in conflict with those of the E.E.C.
The 96th annual report of the Public Works Loan Board for 1970–71 seems to suggest that the recipient local authorities in Northern Ireland are in a highly favourable position compared with those in this country. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Monday had something to say on that. My right hon. Friend said:
We have hard-hit regions in England and Wales and Scotland which are entitled to the same remedies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 1011.]
That is certainly true of my own division. Attercliffe Common, which runs through the centre of the constituency, reminds me of the Falls Road, which I know very well. The whole of South Yorkshire has social and industrial problems which are every bit as urgent as those of any part of Northern Ireland outside the Falls Road area of Belfast and the Bogside area of Derry.
When hon. Members talk about unemployment of just under 9 per cent. in Northern Ireland, I wonder whether they know that there are parts of South Yorkshire where unemployment is higher than that and has been for the last two or three years.
The days of open-ended British financial commitment to Northern Ireland are over. The Finance Act, 1970, provides for a further order, similar to this, presumably for a bigger tranche next time. That order will be subject to much more scrutiny than it has been possible to give to this. It may not receive the same warm welcome. It may even come in


for some opposition unless there is some evidence during the next few months that the purposes to which this money will be devoted are broadly consistent not only with the bringing about of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland but also with the promotion of constructive policies of the kind described by the Leader of the Opposition two months ago.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I share the anxieties expressed by hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about the extent to which we may, in this order, be abrogating our financial responsibilities in this matter. I do not want to be a "macro" like the hon. Member for Leeds, South: I shall be a "micro". I am concerned with a specific aspect of the order.
It may seem strange that an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency should be concerned about this, but my hon. Friend explained that one of the purposes for which these funds could be used was the establishment of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, which was announced after the publication of the Cairncross Report last year. I am by no means an enthusiast for the idea of this corporation. It was described at the time of its announcement as a Northern Ireland I.R.C.
I was delighted that my right hon. Friends decided to enter that disreputable body on this side of St. George's Channel, and I believe it is a mistake to establish it on the other side. However, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would become impatient with me if I were to go into the demerits of the establishment of this retrograde body on the other side of St. George's Channel, so I do not intend to do so.
What I am concerned about is an aspect of the accountability of this body. I understand that the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation when set up will be answerable exclusively to the Northern Ireland Government. Therefore, once we vote funds to provide for the establishment of this body, we in this House will in effect disembarrass ourselves of responsibility for how these funds are spent.
There is one aspect of this which concerns me not a little. It has been drawn

to my attention that there is functioning in Northern Ireland at present a company which is in direct competition with a company operating in my own constituency. This is why I am participating in this debate. I am not mentioning names, though I think my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has the name of the company concerned, for reasons which I think will become clear to the House and because my essential argument concerns not the point but the general point. I use this instance of the anxiety which arose in my constituency simply to illustrate a general point.
The particular point is that a company in my constituency is in direct competition with a company in Northern Ireland—a company which, as I understand it, could be a recipient of funds from this new body which it is proposed to set up in whole or in part with funds which this House will vote tonight. I understand that this company in Northern Ireland has for several years quoted substantially lower prices for its products than all its competitors in the rest of the United Kingdom. I should be the last to complain about that. I would ask, "Why not?". But the company in Northern Ireland traded at a substantial loss in 1966, it has traded at a substantial loss in 1970, and again on the latest accounts in the first six months of 1971. I am advised—and this is one reason I do not quote the names concerned—that technically it may well have been in a position of bankruptcy. Last year I understand that it negotiated a loan from the Northern Ireland Government. It is obviously a potential recipient—and I emphasise the word "potential"—of loans from the new Northern Ireland Finance Corporation.
We all realise the very real and special problems in Northern Ireland and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) pointed out, there is a strong case for reducing levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland to assist with the problems in the Province. But I suggest that it would be intolerable if this finance corporation, set up with funds which we vote tonight, were to help finance a company which, in a technical sense at any rate, has been bankrupt and thereby enable it to undersell and even perhaps to induce the closure of a viable company in the same industry in my constituency


which happens to operate in a burgh where the level of unemployment is at present higher than it is in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that that is not an acceptable possibility.
When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the prospective establishment of a Northern Ireland Finance Corporation at the end of November, he said that it would be
…a finance corporation which will offer help over the next three years to undertakings which have reasonable long-term prospects but are faced with particular needs at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1971: Vol. 827, c. 50.]
It is an entirely acceptable proposition that companies assisted by this finance corporation should be those which have particular needs resulting from the emergency situation in Northern Ireland but which also clearly have reasonable long-term prospects. All that I ask my hon. Friend is whether he can give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will make it their business to ensure that the funds that we vote tonight are not channelled into companies which do not have "reasonable long-term prospects", thereby undermining the viability of competitive firms in the United Kingdom which have reasonable long-term prospects.
I believe that that is not an unreasonable undertaking to request from the Government at a time when we are voting funds for the purpose in part of establishing this corporation which, once established, will be essentially outwith the control of this House.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This order has been generally welcomed on both sides of the House, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who put to us a somewhat remarkable proposition when he said that the days of open-ended finance for Northern Ireland were over. I do not know when he thought that they ever existed.

Mr. Duffy: I did not say that. I said that the days of open-ended British financial commitment to Northern Ireland were over. It is well known that that is the view of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Jenkin: I took down the hon. Gentleman's words carefully because what he said struck me as being a very remarkable proposition. The financial commitment to Northern Ireland has never been open-ended. So far as we are discussing finance available under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1970, passed when the previous Administration were in power, and by orders made under Section 35, it is most specifically limited to £50 million under the Act and no more than three subsequent tranches of £50 million each. I cannot see how anyone making a pretence to understand the English language can describe that as "open-ended".
More serious is the fact that I believe that the hon. Gentleman is speaking only for himself when he challenges the sums that we are discussing tonight of capital spending in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the view which he has expressed is shared by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) or, indeed, the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) who followed me earlier in the debate.
The truth—it needs to be stated frequently—is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom has a unified capital market. The inhabitants of Northern Ireland invest in British Government securities and in many of the National Savings media which feed the National Loans Fund. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate that the Northern Ireland Government should be able to borrow from the National Loans Fund.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked a formidable number of questions arising from what is a very short order. However, I will try to answer his points. If there are any of the more technical matters which I do not answer tonight, I will study HANSARD the day after tomorrow and perhaps write to him further.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the machinery of the financial relationship between Westminster and Stormont. This, as one might expect, is not to be found in a very clearly defined institutional framework. It goes on continuously. On financial matters, it is fair to say that the Treasury is in the lead, but naturally co-operating and consulting fully with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Department.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the global sum is decided and how the totals are worked out. I assure him that the Northern Ireland Government participate fully in the whole of the P.E.S.C. machinery, which is the basis for the determination of the aggregates of public spending in the whole of the United Kingdom. This system works with increasing sophistication, and it would obviously be important, where money is passing through the National Loans Fund to a provincial Administration like the Northern Ireland Government, that they should participate in the P.E.S.C. system, as they do.
I can understand the request that the accounts of the National Loans Fund might show in more detail the outgoings relating to Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will have this matter looked into. I cannot promise that anything will emerge, but we will certainly study the problem to see whether something might be done on that basis.
A number of hon. Members asked the same question which was asked last April: for what purposes is the on-lending spent? Under the terms of the 1970 Act, this is for capital spending. It feeds what might be called the common stockpot of money available to the Northern Ireland Government for capital spending. There is no separate allocation of this money which would be separable and different from the allocation which the Northern Ireland Government can raise by Treasury bills, by short-term borrowing, or by the Northern Ireland savings certificates. However, there is broad agreement between the two Governments—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, referred to this point—on the main headings on which spending may be put. I can give the House an indication of what they are. They must be capital purposes, as required by the Act. The money which we would be voting tonight will be used for on-lending by the Northern Ireland Government. They expect about half of it to go for housing.
I was asked about housing. The Housing Executive is in the course of taking over housing from the Northern Ireland local authorities. For the most part, on-lending in future will go to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Nearly one-quarter will go to the North-

ern Ireland Electricity Board for electricity investment, and the balance will be split about equally between the new finance corporation—I shall come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—and general local authority services other than housing.
Some indication of the breadth of the spending which might come in that last head was given in the statement by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Kirk, on 20th January—it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder)—which gave a long list of spending. Some of it is revenue spending, and therefore not eligible to be financed by this money, but obviously some of it is capital spending—education, new nursery schools, industrial training and training schools. Those are included in the spending, and in so far as that is capital, it would be eligible to be financed by this money from the National Loans Fund.
The reality of the position is that within the broad framework agreed with the Westminster Government, the Northern Ireland Administration are responsible and accountable for the spending of the money. This is money which is lent to them and then comes under their jurisdiction. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus that the money passes out of the control of this House, but our control is exercised at this stage by the continuing agreement between Westminster and Stormont. It is inherent in the nature of the relationship between the Stormont Government and Westminster that once the money is in the hands of the Stormont Government they are responsible for deciding the priorities within the range of heads which I have indicated.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is obviously a difficult matter to assess in discussions between Governments in the way that has developed over the years, but from what the Financial Secretary said it appears that there could be money for training grants if it came under the heading of capital. I presume that it must be industrial training but it must come under the heading of capital. That is fair enough.
The Northern Ireland Government provide investment grants. The investment grant system can be used for capital purposes. The Government at Westminster


do not agree with investment grants. Have there been discussions about this, or is this entirely a matter for the Northern Ireland Government, bearing in mind that the Government here have strong views about these grants or they would not have ended them here?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure how far I can go in answering that, because I must be careful, as all Ministers speaking from this Dispatch Box must be, not to trespass in any way on matters which are the prerogative of the Northern Ireland Government. But there was considerable discussion with the Northern Ireland Government, when the system of investment incentives was under review in this country, about what would be the consequences in Northern Ireland of the ending of investment grants, and what reasonable alternative measures they might take. Investment grants were provided in Northern Ireland long before they were introduced here by the Labour Party in 1966, and the system still operates there. It is justified on the grounds of the overall average higher level of unemployment and the economic difficulties which they have faced over a long period.
I think that I must be cautious on the question of training grants. It is not covered by the terms of the agreement with the Treasury, and one would imagine that, overwhelmingly, money spent on industrial training would be of a revenue nature, and not capital. Perhaps I might, therefore, qualify what I said earlier by that statement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the money voted for the relief of distress. That is of an entirely different nature. That was a United Kingdom donation of £250,000 in 1969, up to £400,000 this year, and it goes partly for what may be described as charitable purposes. This in no sense finances the Northern Ireland Government. No doubt they have a considerable say in its administration but it is an entirely separate sum and nothing to do with what we are discussing tonight.
It is clear that money under this order is not available for industrial development, except insofar as some of it will now pass through the Finance Corporation and come within the scope of its lending—and it will be lending and not grant-aiding. None of this money will

go to Harland and Wolff. It would be extremely unlikely that the Finance Corporation would put money into Harland and Wolff, since the Northern Ireland Government have put a lot of money into the company and have a 49 per cent. equity stake in it. That is since the last order.
Hon. Members asked where they could find the categories. Here, I fear I must give the answer that I gave to a similar question last year, that details of this spending are to be found in documents published by the Northern Ireland Government, not in documents which we publish here. The National Loans Fund Accounts show that the money moves from the Fund to the Northern Ireland Government, who are responsible for the spending of it, are accountable for it, and publish the details.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked about what was said during discussions and took as an example the type of people who are members of the Electricity Board. That is perhaps a matter for my right hon. Friends at the Home Office, but I remind him that the Northern Ireland Government are pledged to non-discrimination and are pursuing that policy.
He raised the question about reporting to Brussels on co-ordination with the Ten, but that is a matter on which I can give no help tonight. I will look into it, however, and if there seems to be a reply that I can give, I will write to the hon. Member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South was right when he said that this money was not available for repairing, as he put it, "the ravages of terrorism", but is money for capital development under the broad headings I have described—although it will go to supply employment opportunities and reinforce the £18·5 million programme which Mr. Kirk announced on 20th January. I am sure the House was encouraged by the figures he gave of the astonishing growth in industrial production in Northern Ireland in the last few years—growth in spite of the trouble, growth which offers considerable hope for the future of that part of the United Kingdom.
Finally, may I turn to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member


for South Angus. I fully understand his anxieties. I am glad that he welcomed the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 29th November in which he said that the money available to the Northern Ireland Government will offer help
… over the next three years to undertakings which have reasonable long-term prospects but are faced with the particular needs at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 50.]
Perhaps it will help my hon. Friend if I enlarge on that by quoting the Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland, Mr. Robin Baillie, who said on 16th December, 1971, in the Northern Ireland Parliament—as reported at column 1358
of their OFFICIAL REPORT:
The Corporation will offer assistance to firms which, because of the current situation in Northern Ireland, are suffering serious liquidity problems but which, in the words of the report, have reasonably good prospects of solvency in the longer term and have a useful contribution to make to the economic life of Northern Ireland".
This in a sense tightens up still further the language used by the Home Secretary in the debate on 29th November.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus asked for an assurance which I cannot give him and I do not want him to be under any illusions about that. I cannot conceive that it would be in the interests of the Northern Ireland Government, given that the Finance Corporation will have a finite sum of £50 million, to have any part of that amount spent on bolstering up a firm of the description which my hon. Friend gave. To do so would seem to be financial, economic and indeed social folly.
I will not begin to comment on the individual case. I have seen my hon. Friend's letter. but it must be clear from the terms of the Cairncross Report, from what the Home Secretary said and from what Mr. Baillie said on 16th November, that this is aimed at helping companies which are facing short-term liquidity problems as a result of the disturbances but which could not possibly be made available to a firm such as that which my hon. Friend described, which was in serious difficulties long before the troubles arose in 1969 and which would have no long-term hope of solvency. That is as far as I can go tonight on this subject.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I appreciate that there are limits to what my hon. Friend can say in this matter. However, would he agree that the phrase
reasonably good prospects of solvency in the longer-term
is a good deal less satisfactory than the phrase used by the Home Secretary, about undertakings which have " reasonable long-term prospects? " I am particularly concerned about this in view of the undertaking that my right hon. Friend gave to the House, and my hon. Friend will agree that there is some obligation on Her Majesty's Government to see that that undertaking is fulfilled.

Mr. Jenkin: I accept that during the setting up of the Fund and the provision of the money there must be close consultation. This is, in fact, part of the day-to-day consultation that goes on. As I said at the outset, when answering a question from the hon. Member for Leeds, South, it is not possible to look for a clearly defined institutional framework within which these things are done. The relationship is close, harmonious and continuing, and that often gives the best results when one is dealing with a sensitive relationship of this sort.
I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern about, for example, the position of the Scottish firm in his constituency, and also the concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) has expressed to me on a similar point. My hon. Friend will agree that Northern Ireland is a special case. The civil disturbances are having and have had a serious effect on some firms and, therefore, on the economy. Other parts of the United Kingdom have, happily, been spared this turbulence.
The Cairncross Committee recommended that funds should be made available to help with this difficulty. That recommendation has been accepted by the Westminster and Stormont Governments and we rely on those who will administer this money to see that it is put to the purposes for which it is intended.
I have done my best to answer most of the questions that have been put to me and I hope that hon. Members will now feel that it would be right to accept this Instrument. I appreciate the warm


welcome it has received, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder). I, too, believe that it will play a vital and necessary part in maintaining confidence in the Northern Ireland economy and will provide the wherewithal with which the people of Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy the parity of treatment to which they are entitled under long-standing financial arrangements between the two Governments.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES (MARITIME CONSULTATIVE ORGANISATION)

12.25 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I beg to move,
That the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.
This order seeks to give relief from vehicle excise duty to some officials of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, which has a headquarters in London. This relief has hitherto been given by administrative action, but it is undesirable that it should permanently be done in that way. It is therefore desired to do the same thing under Statutory authority. That is the sole purpose of the order. I hope that the House will approve it.

Question put and agreed to.

IMPORT DUTIES ORDER

12.26 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 11) Order 1971 (SI, 1971, No. 2043) dated 16th December 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

The order raises from 10 per cent. to 16 per cent. ad valorem the full rate of import duty on what might for convenience be called low-density polyethylene and polystyrene. Imports from the European Free Trade Area and the Irish Republic which satisfy the requisite conditions will continue to be free of duty.
The tariff application was widely advertised and interested parties were given the opportunity to make known their views to the Department of Trade and Industry.
I shall be able to deal with any points the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) may wish to raise, but at this hour I think that all I need say is that, having regard to all the circumstances, I consider it reasonable to grant United Kingdom producers of low-density polyethylene and polystyrene tariff parity with E.E.C. producers. I therefore commend the order to the House.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Brian Walden: In view of the lateness of the hour, the Under-Secretary has put forward the order with becoming brevity. As the Opposition have no objection to the order, I do not intend to waste the time of the House.
The trade itself has pressed for this rise in tariff rates. In pressing for it last March, the trade gave a pledge that no price increases would be involved. I hope that that will not be simply a ritual pledge and that prices will not rise. I hope that the Government ensure that the trade knows that the House took note of what it said and expects the trade, therefore, as far as is humanly possible, to honour that agreement and to bear in mind that although from time to time circumstances arise which occasion price increases, the House would not be too pleased, and nor would the Government, if prices were suddenly sharply raised as a result of the passing of the order.

Mr. Anthony Grant: As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Government were pleased that the industry publicly indicated last March that it was not its intention to increase domestic prices as a result of any tariff increase but rather to increase its capacity utilisation by improving its share of the United Kingdom


market. I have no doubt that the industry will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

HOSPITALS (NOTTINGHAM)

12.29 a.m.

Mr. William Whitlock: The problems of the hospital services in Nottingham, as indeed elsewhere, are many and varied. Tonight I want to deal with a narrow but very important aspect of them, that of building maintenance.
However dedicated the nursing and medical staff of a hospital may be, all their wonderful work may be made harder by the inadequacy of the buildings in which they work, and it may be threatened by the deterioration of those buildings. The Department of Health and Social Security has plans for existing hospital buildings. The great "in" word in the Department these days seems to be "scenario", which conjures up beautiful pictures about our hospital service as it develops under those plans.
Although it is essential to have plans for the future, in dreaming its wonderful dreams about the future the Department fails to see clearly some of the existing problems which stare it in the face. A battle is going on to preserve the fabric of older hospitals and I have the feeling that the Department is only dimly aware of the intensity and importance of this battle.
To fight battles, generals are necessary, I suppose, but not too many of them, for they do not have to bear the heat and burden of the day where the action takes place. One often hears the somewhat cynical comment that when the Government do not wish to recognise a problem or attempt to solve it immediately, they appoint a Royal Commission. Recently I heard someone say rather bitterly that the Department has a variant on that approach; it appoints a committee and when it can no longer

postpone doing something about the committee's report and recommendations, it appoints more generals at headquarters.
The Committee of Inquiry on Hospital Building Maintenance and the Work of Building Supervisors stated about 18 months ago, after two years' work, in what is known as the Woodbine Parish Report, that greater attention to hospital building maintenance is necessary. All the signs now are that the outcome of that Report will be no more than the appointment of more generals at regional hospital board level instead of at the level where the augmentation of staff is really necessary—namely, at the hospitals. Over the years the staff at regional level has been greatly increased and it can be shown that those increases have not led to commensurate improvements in the lot of patients.
All hospital groups have their building maintenance problems but tonight I shall deal specifically with the problems of the Trent Vale Hospital Group. The Group's Management Committee covers nine hospitals which, apart from a total cubic capacity of buildings in excess of 16 million cubic feet of occupied space, contain within their grounds approximately eight miles of roads and paths. The maintenance of those buildings, roads and grounds presents formidable problems which must he tackled by a supervisory building staff which is far too few in numbers and whose salary scales are much too low.
Two of the hospitals have developed since the 1930s but the other seven date from 1870 onwards. Internally what one might call the social modernisation of the older hospitals has produced in the last 20 years complete transformations. In place of dark and dreary corridors and of wards calculated to depress the blithest of spirits, there is now bright, attractive accommodation which has its therapeutic effect on patients.
The story of external maintenance is somewhat different, for, although much work has been done externally, a grossly under-staffed building supervisory team is fighting hard against the encroachments of decay, eking out finances totally inadequate for the struggle.
I have seen at these hospitals how great the maintenance demands are. They involve correcting faulty or non-existent


damp courses and the brickwork decay which results from these defective damp courses; replacing obsolete and corroding eves guttering which has permitted rain to penetrate and extensively to rot the roof timbers; doing a thousand and one jobs which include repairing broken windows, sash cords, doors and locks, floors, plaster surfaces, blocked drains, sanitary ware and so on. To supervise all these things within a group of nine hospitals, to carry out surveys, to draw up plans and programmes, to make decisions on priorities within the financial limits set, to prepare documents for competitive tendering, to prepare accounts, and to do all the things which the group building supervisor has to do, means that this official is faced with an exceedingly demanding job.
In addition to organising and controlling these tasks he acts as a member of the group management teams and attends meetings on future planning projects, site meetings on capital schemes and so on. When I learned of the salary he is paid I was amazed that we were served by a man as competent as this who obviously could command so much more in pay in the building industry elsewhere. I was even more amazed when I was told of the permitted level of supervisory staff supporting him. But even that low establishment is not reached, because the salaries offered are so inadequate that staff cannot be found. Some of those employed against the establishment are temporary and some have qualification below the standard required.
Recruitment to this department, as indeed to so many other departments of the hospital service, is seriously affected by the low salaries offered. It will not improve until realistic salaries bring in people who are badly needed if the continued life of our vitally necessary hospital buildings is to be assured. Massive infusions of labour and materials must also be forthcoming if further deterioration in the structure of the older buildings is to be avoided. If the money is made available now for Nottingham's hospitals and for hospitals throughout the country with the same building maintenance programme, and if the hospital building programme is expedited, that will make a large dent in the unemployment figures.
Expenditure per head of populace on the medical and hospital services in the

Sheffield Region has repeatedly been below the national average figure, and it has, of course, long been obvious that before the National Health Service was brought into being there was in the South of England better provisions for hospital and medical services than in other parts of the country. It has naturally been necessary for each successive government to continue to maintain the services already in being, but elimination of the imbalance between regions has nevertheless taken far too long. It is time the Sheffield region, and particularly the Nottingham area, had its fair share of the national cake available for the hospital service. It is time, too, that a new region was created with Nottingham as its centre, or, failing that admirable change, at least that the regional board was moved to headquarters in Nottingham.
While there may be differences in treatment as between one part of the country and another in the allocation of money for hospital building and maintenance programmes, the Minister will no doubt say that all salaries are at national rates and are determined by the appropriate Whitley Council. But I hope that he will not shelter behind that argument. What the management side of each Whitley Council can offer the staff side in salaries largely depends on the limits to which the hon. Gentleman's Department permits it to go, and behind his Department is the cold, clutching hand of the Treasury, which sees to it that the Whitley Council can offer such inadequate salaries to hospital supervisory building staff while permitting Whitehall Departments—even, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman's own Department—to employ from private agencies teenage copy typists who can earn 87½p an hour. That is £35 for a 40-hour week, and the payment to the agencies includes a fee over and above the salary paid to the typists.
Will the Minister please do something urgently to change this ridiculous situation before greater troubles hit our hospitals? Will he badger the Treasury until adequate sums of money are available to ensure that proper maintenance arrangements for our hospitals are made? Will he hound the Treasury night and day until in the Nottingham area we have a right, fair and proper share of


the money that is made available for our hospital service?

12.42 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) has expressed concern about the shortage of building maintenance staff at supervisory and working levels at the Trent Vale Hospital Management Committee. The H.M.C. has not drawn attention to any special difficulty in recruiting staff in these categories of which I am aware. My information is that it has in post a building supervisor—an officer responsible for the planning and supervision of the building maintenance work of the group of hospitals for which the H.M.C. is responsible—supported by two assistant building supervisors. In addition, there are three general foremen, one foreman painter, one chargehand painter, one chargehand carpenter. and one chargehand bricklayer, as well as 14 painters, 12 carpenters, five bricklayers and eight building labourers—quite a substantial tally of staff to cover admittedly a group with a substantial number of hospitals and a substantial area of fabric to maintain. Although I said that I am not aware of any special difficulties, I know that the H.M.C. would like to employ an additional assistant building supervisor.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors have been concerned about the general standards of hospital building maintenance. The former Secretary of State, along with the then Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, set up in 1968 a committee of inquiry on hospital building maintenance and the work of building supervisors under the chairmanship of Mr. David Woodbine Parish. So the hon. Gentleman's own right hon. Friend was not immune from the disease to which he drew attention of setting up committees.
As the hon. Member has reminded the House, the committee reported in 1970. In sending copies of its report to hospital authorities my Department made it clear that the Secretary of State was in agreement with the committee's view that sound estate management required greater attention to building maintenance and the way it was organised and

managed in hospitals. A number of specific recommendations required detailed consideration and consultation, in the first instance at least, with representatives of the hospital authorities and the professional and staff interests concerned. These considerations and consultations were carried out last year and in August, 1971, my right hon. Friend was able to issue full guidance on the subject to hospital authorities. So the committee and its work had not been abortive.
This guidance was to the effect that in general my right hon. Friend accepted the recommendations in the Woodbine Parish Report as indicating ways in which management at all levels might be improved. In particular the responsibility of the Department to provide policy guidance on building maintenance and a monitoring framework was recognised and hospital authorities were advised that the aim would be to make available to those concerned with building maintenance at hospital boards and hospital management committees the same degree of professional and technical leadership, guidance and support as is already available on engineering maintenance. Hospital boards were reminded of their responsibility for preparing a co-ordinated regional plan for maintenance and for ensuring that hospital management committees instituted an effective organisation for building maintenance, applying the principles of planning, programming and financial control already recommended by my Department. This would entail budgeting for maintenance to meet approved and control programmes which accord with the regional plan and have the support of the boards' professional staff.
My right hon. Friend accepts the need for monitoring building maintenance but he does not wish to dictate to hospital authorities the manner in which it should be carried out. He takes the view that building maintenance is a function of general management some will handle it one way, some another. He intends to set objectives and review performance rather than tie management to particular organisational solutions. What is essential is that for each hospital group there should be an officer accountable for building maintenance, technically qualified or with technical competence at his


command and with a duty to ensure that professional advice, guidance and information is obtained from the regional architect.
Hospital boards were also reminded of their responsibility for monitoring the maintenance programmes of H.M.C.s and—through their regional architect and regional engineer and their staffs—for providing technical officers with advice, guidance and information.
The guidance to which I have referred went on to make it clear that hospital management committees were responsible for ensuring that a proper level of maintenance is carried out, avoiding extravagance and false economy and according to a comprehensive, ordered programme that covered all the hospitals in the group and was compatible with the regional plan. Obviously, the organisation adopted by H.M.C.s for this purpose might take various forms: single or separate building and engineering services, arrangements for using the maintenance services of another H.M.C. or their sharing and pooling arrangements. Technical responsibility for building maintenance would normally rest with a building supervisor, supported professionally by the regional architect.
Although the Woodbine Parish Report recommended the introduction of an improved career structure involving a new grade of deputy building supervisor and the recruitment of trainee technicians as well as a higher level of qualification for building supervisors, the guidance from my Department to which I have referred could not cover these items as, along with salaries and conditions of service, such matters are for the Whitley Council that has building supervisors within its purview. I shall say something about this as I move on.
I am aware that the Whitley Council has had a number of meetings at which the implications of the Woodbine Parish Report have been discussed. The council has also had under consideration a claim by the staff side for improved salaries for building supervisors as well as the allocation of responsibility for technical and managerial matters, levels of qualifications, protection for staff who are displaced and so on. Although full agreement between the two sides of the council on all these aspects, including re

vised salaries, has not yet been reached, I understand that a further meeting of the Whitley Council has been arranged for Friday, 28th January. I hope that at that meeting the outstanding differences will be resolved so that steps can be taken to begin implementing the sort of staffing structure advocated by the Woodbine Parish Committee. This will obviously have a bearing on the effectiveness of several of the other intended measures to improve hospital building maintenance.
The hon. Member has criticised the salary levels of building supervisors. Their present scales have been in operation since 1st July 1970 and no one would dispute that they are in need of improvement. As I have said, part of the task upon which the Whitley Council is currently engaged is to agree upon new salary scales but the scales now need to be set in the context of the new grading structure recommended by the Woodbine Parish Committee and to take into account that in future a higher standard of qualification will be expected of new entrants to the hospital service than in the past. Our hope is that the new grading and salary structure to be agreed upon in the Whitley Council—and, I hope, agreed soon—will set the pattern for the development of more attractive careers for building supervisors in hospital building maintenance attracting into the service a higher proportion than exists at present of the fully qualified supervisor able to provide the expertise that will lead to a marked improvement in the general level of maintenance. We look, therefore, for the increase in staff to be not in the region, as the hon. Gentleman said but in connection with the plant and needs on the ground at hospital level.
I would here draw attention to recent changes in the grading structure and pay of hospital maintenance workers up to foreman level. During the past year agreement has been reached with the trade unions to grade all hospital works maintenance staff up to foreman level within a five-banded common grading structure based on job evaluation. Grading is determined by a requirement to exercise differing ranges of skill and responsibility allied to qualifications gained by training and/or experience. New rates of pay applicable to this grading structure were negotiated and applied in


two stages dating from October 1970 and March 1971, and negotiations for a revision of these rates are currently taking place.
There is another means of improving maintenance, by making fuller use of the craftsmen already employed, mainly by the introduction of incentive bonus schemes. My Department is anxious to see more incentive bonus schemes introduced for maintenance work as soon as circumstances permit. Progress with their installation is at present severely restricted by the availability of work study officers. Such staff as are available must for the time being be concentrated on schemes for more lowly-paid ancillary workers but, as more staff are trained, we should like to see incentive bonus schemes developed much more widely than at present. While there is no scheme as yet in operation at the Trent Vale H.M.C., if this H.M.C. considers there is scope for such a scheme I have no doubt that the possibilities can in due course be looked into.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from what I have said that we are very much alive to the need for

general improvement in the attention given by all hospital authorities to building maintenance. My Department will gladly consider further, with the H.M.C. and the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board, as the hon. Gentleman has brought them into the picture, any specific local problems on which the group consider that special advice is required.
We will, therefore, look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said in the light of what he has said, which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and see what further we can do.

Mr. Whitlock: I thank the Minister for his encouraging remarks. I trust that some of the hopes he has expressed will be fulfilled in the not-too-distant future. Some of the supervisory building maintenance staff feel that the guidance about which he has talked consists of telling existing staff, "Keep watch on your maintenance programme and your maintenance problems." This is something they are already doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.